LATIN   SENTENCE   CONNECTION 


Latin  Sentence  Connection 


By 
CLARENCE  W.   MENDELL,  Ph.  D. 


New  Haven:   Yale  University  Press 

London:   Humphrey  Milford 

Oxford  University  Press 

MDCCCCXVII 


Copyright,  1917 
BY  Yale  University  Press 


First  published,  January,  1917 


TO 
E.   M. 


357399 


PREFACE 

The  study  of  the  syntax  of  the  verb  in  Latin  has  for 
the  most  part  taken  the  form  of  a  careful  examination 
of  coordination  and  subordination  and  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  former  into  the  latter  by  way  of  parataxis. 
The  present  investigation  is  an  attempt  to  discover  a 
more  fundamental  standpoint  for  the  consideration  of 
sentence  relations,  and  to  do  away  with  the  somewhat 
artificial  distinction  between  coordinate  and  subordi- 
nate by  means  of  a  more  thorough  understanding  of 
the  nature  and  origin  of  each.  It  is  based  in  part  on 
my  own  complete  collection  from  Tacitus  of  the  in- 
stances of  adjacent  sentences  not  connected  by  con- 
junctions ;  in  part  on  the  results  of  a  special  study  of 
Cato  and  Sallust  and  the  younger  Pliny  entire,  of  some 
three  hundred  pages  of  Cicero  and  about  the  same 
amount  of  Seneca,  of  three  books  of  Caesar,  three  of 
Livy,  four  of  Quintilian,  and  four  lives  of  Suetonius ; 
in  part  on  material  drawn  from  casual  reading.  My 
collections  include  some  fourteen  thousand  cases  aside 
from  many  listed  by  citation  but  not  actually  taken  off 
on  cards.  For  Plautus  and  Terence  I  have  made  use  of 
Bennett:  Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  Morris:  The  Inde- 
pendent Subjunctive  in  Plautus,  and  the  standard  text 
books  on  Latin  syntax.  Citations  are  made  from  the 
latest  editions  of  the  Teubner  texts. 

To  Prof.  E.  P.  Morris  of  Yale  College  I  have  the 


via  PREFACE 


deepest  sense  of  gratitude,  which  it  gives  me  pleasure 
to  express,  for  his  unflagging  interest  and  constant 
help  in  the  pursuit  of  the  present  investigation.  The 
study  is  the  outcome  of  his  suggestions,  made  in  his 
syntax  seminar  and  in  his  Principles  and  Methods  in 
Syntax,  and  the  discussion  with  him  of  the  various 
phases  of  the  subject  has  made  possible  the  present 
treatment.  I  would  acknowledge  also  the  help  derived 
from  the  thesis  of  Miss  Irene  Nye  {Sentence  Connec- 
tion, Yale  University,  1912)  and  from  the  welcome 
criticism  of  my  colleagues,  Professor  Hemingway  and 

Doctor  Nichols. 

C.  W.  M. 

New  Haven,  December,  1916. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Chapter  I.  Introduction.  The  sentence :  difficulty  of 
definition;  psychological  processes  behind  the  for- 
mation of  sentences ;  the  objective  result.  Sentence 
groups :  no  sentence  in  consecutive  discourse  iso- 
lated; sentence  content  and  sentence  function; 
necessity  for  expression  of  sentence  relations  .      .         1 

Chapter  II.  Introduction  (Continued).  Fundamen- 
tal types  of  connection :  Repetition,  Change,  Incom- 
pleteness; their  general  characteristics;  order  of 
investigation 13 

Chapter  III.  Repetition.  1.  Repetition  of  Content: 
its  fundamental  characteristics;  its  various  types; 
the  relations  expressed  by  it ;  the  conjunctions  used 
to  supplement  its  force.  2.  Repetition  of  Function : 
its  characteristics,  typical  uses,  and  significance; 
conjunctions  used  to  supplement  its  force  ...       21 

Chapter  IV.  Retrospective  Incompleteness.  Defini- 
tion of  the  term  Incompleteness.  Semantic  and 
functional  incompleteness 86 

Chapter  V.  Change.  Definition  of  the  term.  Seman- 
tic change :  necessarily  abrupt  to  be  effective ; 
narrow  range  of  relations  expressed ;  supplementary 
conjunctions.  Functional  change :  wider  range  but 
less  precision;  relations  expressed;  conjunctions 
used  to  supplement  force Ill 

Chapter  VI.  Anticipatory  Incompleteness.  Types 
corresponding  to  those  used  with  retrospective 
force :  relations  suggested  correspondingly  vague. 


X  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Anticipatory  force  due  to  irrelevant  emphasis :  anti- 
cipates a  contrast  to  follow.  Anticipatory  force 
due  to  semantic  vagueness:  anticipates  an  explana- 
tory clause  to  follow.  Use  of  supplementary  con- 
junctions. Functional  incompleteness :  anticipatory 
use  of  the  imperative  mode  the  most  important  type.     141 

Chapter  VII.  Parenthetic  Incompleteness.  The  use 
of  injected  words  logically  incomplete  in  meaning, 
to  give  tone  to  a  statement.  So-called  Parataxis. 
Resultant  constructions 191 

Chapter  VIII.  Conclusion.  Summary  of  the  types  of 
sentence  connection  disclosed  by  the  investigation. 
Indication  of  possible  applications  of  the  principles 
discussed.  Suggestion  of  important  extensions  of 
the  investigation 207 


LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTION^ 

Some  working  definition  of  the  term  sentence  is  a 
primary  requisite  to  a  study  of  sentence  connection. 
Not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  sharply  dividing  sen- 
tence from  sentence,  for  this  is  of  no  great  impor- 
tance; and  not  for  the  purpose  of  distinguishing 
between  sentence  and  clause,  a  distinction  which  means 
nothing.  But  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  get  clearly 
in  mind  the  mental  processes  lying  behind  the  making 
of  a  sentence,  to  understand  what  the  sentence  is  and 
what  it  represents.  And  so  the  difficulty  in  finding  a 
satisfactory  definition  is  not  altogether  unfortunate; 
the  ultimate  definition  is  of  less  value  than  an  under- 
standing of  the  workings  of  the  mind  in  producing  a 
sentence,  an  understanding  which  should  result  from 
the  attempt  at  definition. 

That  there  is  a  real  difficulty  in  the  satisfactory 
formulation  of  such  a  definition  is  obvious  from  the 
many  attempts  that  have  been  made  by  scholars  in 
widely  differing  fields.  The  dictionaries  have  as  a 
rule  settled  upon  some  form  of  the  statement  that  ''a 

1  The  discussion  of  the  sentence  in  this  chapter  is  based  very  largely 
on  Morris:  On  Principles  and  Methods  in  Syntax  (especially  Chapter 
II);  Wundt:  Voelkerpsychologie  (Volume  II);  Paul:  Prinzipien  der 
SprachgeschicMe,  4th  edition,  (Chapter  VI) ;  and,  to  a  lesser  degree, 
on  Sheffield;  Grammar  and  ThinTcing. 


2  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 


vS 


sentence  is  a  group  of  words"  with,  of  course,  cer- 
tain properties  which  they  describe.  The  New  Eng- 
lish Dictionary,  for  instance,  offers  this:  "A  series 
of  words  in  connected  speech  or  writing,  forming 
the  grammatically  complete  expression  of  a  single 
thought."  The  Century  Dictionary  and  Cyclopedia 
is  more  concise:  ''A  form  of  words  having  grammati- 
cal completeness." 

Largely  under  the  influence  of  psychological  study, 
it  has  become  customary  for  the  students  of  language 
to  discard  this  type  of  definition  and  to  condemn  it 
without  qualification.  This  attitude  is  itself  not  alto- 
gether right.  For,  from  the  objective  point  of  view 
the  sentence  is  a  group  of  words.  So  far  as  the  reader 
or  hearer  is  concerned  the  sentence  is  a  series  of 
words  which  he  must  relate  to  each  other  in  such  a 
way  as  to  understand  their  meaning  as  a  whole.  The 
mental  process  for  him  is  a  synthetic  one,  so  that  the 
essential  unit  is  the  word  and  the  ultimate  end  the 
combination  of  the  words  into  a  larger  unit  which 
shall  convey  to  him  a  single  idea.  But,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  speaker  or  writer,  the  reverse  is  the 
case,  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that  any  definition  of  the 
sentence  as  a  group  of  words  is  inadequate  and  mis- 
leading. It  looks  at  the  sentence  only  in  an  objective 
way — as  a  finished  product — without  reference  to  the 
process  by  which  it  came  to  exist.  This  process  is 
something  as  follows. 

An  idea  first  presents  itself  to  the  mind,  not  articu- 
lated into  words,  but  as  a  unit.  This  first  conception 
of  the  idea  is  very  likely  to  be  vague  and  ill-defined. 


INTRODUCTION 


Some  external  stimulus  gives  to  the  mind  a  general 
impression,  or  something  within  the  mind  itself,  some 
thought  already  conceived,  suggests  a  further  idea. 
Instinctively  the  mind  focuses  on  that  undefined 
impression ;  instinctively  it  begins  to  analyze  the  con- 
cept. And  from  the  whole  conceptual  unit,  the  mind 
extracts  the  part  which  is  really  pertinent  to  the 
matter  under  discussion,  to  the  train  of  thought  which 
it  is  pursuing.  This  part  it  analyzes  into  words  for 
presentation,  and  the  result  of  this  analysis  for  presen- 
tation is  the  sentence.  For  example,  the  discussion  of 
colour  in  a  landscape  might  suggest  to  the  mind  a 
certain  large  white  house  built  of  wood  and  standing 
among  trees.  The  first  impression  is  of  the  whole 
object  in  its  setting.  The  mind  proceeds  to  analyze 
this  impression,  and  from  its  whole  selects  the  relevant 
part,  the  colour  of  the  house.  This  item  it  analyzes 
into  words  and  presents  in  some  such  form  as.  The 
house  is  white,  or.  There  is  a  white  house. 

This  is  a  simple  example,  but  the  speech  form  which 
finally  results  from  the  mental  processes  should  be 
noted  more  carefully.  Each  word  used  in  the  presen- 
tation of  the  analyzed  concept  has  in  itself  a  kernel  of 
meaning,  that  is,  it  represents  an  idea  which  is  a  com- 
ponent part  of  the  larger  idea,  presented  by  the  whole. 
If  the  expression  of  the  concept  is  clear,  the  various 
component  ideas,  conveyed  by  the  separate  words 
employed,  are  so  presented,  and  especially  their  rela- 
tions to  each  other  are  so  presented,  that  the  hearer 
or  reader  is  enabled,  by  combining  them  again  in  his 
own  mind,  approximately  to  reproduce  there  the  rele- 


LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 


vant  part  of  the  conceptional  unit  which  first  appeared 
in  the  mind  of  the  speaker  or  writer.  From  this  point 
of  view,  then,  the  sentence  is  the  unit  and  the  analysis 
into  words  serves  only  to  convey  the  concept  from  one 
mind  to  another. 

A  working  definition,  therefore,  of  the  sentence,  less 
misleading  than  the  dictionary  definitions  and  more 
useful  in  any  study  which  seeks  to  understand  the 
means  employed  by  language  to  express  ideas,  would 
be  the  following:  A  sentence  is  the  verbal  expression 
of  the  relevant  part  of  a  single  idea,  conceived  and 
analyzed  in  the  mind  of  its  author. 

With  such  a  definition  one  further  danger  of  mis- 
conception, and  a  grave  one,  remains ;  namely,  that  of 
considering  the  concept  from  which  the  sentence 
arises  not  only  as  a  unit  but  as  an  isolated  unit.  It  is 
not  an  isolated  unit.  All  thought  is  associative.  Too 
much  emphasis  can  hardly  be  given  to  the  statement 
made  above,  that  either  some  external  stimulus,  some- 
thing seen  or  heard,  suggests  to  the  mind  each  con- 
ceptual unit,  or  else  such  a  unit  is  suggested  by  some- 
thing in  the  train  of  thought,  by  some  detail  of  another 
concept  already  analyzed  by  the  mind.  In  the  train 
of  thought  represented  by  consecutive  discourse  the 
latter  is,  of  course,  regularly  the  case.  And  the  pro- 
cess is  as  follows.  When  one  concept  has  been  ana- 
lyzed and  its  relevant  phase  presented,  the  component 
parts  once  more  combine  and  again  form  a  unit  in  the 
mind,  while  the  next  idea,  suggested  by  the  first,  be- 
comes the  focus  of  the  mind's  attention  and  is  in 
turn  analyzed  in  the  same  way,  itself  to  return  pres- 


INTRODUCTION 


ently  to  the  form  of  a  comparatively  vague  unit. 
Furthermore  the  mind  is  capable  of  embracing  more 
than  a  single  idea  at  a  single  time.  So  that  while 
one  concept  is  immediately  before  it  for  analysis,  not 
only  are  the  previous  ideas  present  in  less  distinct 
form  but  in  the  same  way  it  is,  vaguely  at  least,  con- 
scious of  the  further  idea  or  ideas  which  the  one 
immediately  before  it  suggests.  The  individual  con- 
cepts expressed  in  sentences  may  be  and  often  are 
themselves  component  parts  of  a  larger  unit  already 
conceived  in  a  more  or  less  vague  way  in  the  mind. 
In  such  cases  the  sentences  in  a  group  of  sentences 
are  analogous  to  the  individual  words  in  a  single 
sentence. 

Two  types  of  thought  process  are  thus  suggested: 
the  first,  that  in  which  idea  follows  idea  in  succession 
as  the  result  of  immediate  suggestion;  the  other,  the 
type  in  which  the  thoughts  are  component  parts 
resulting  from  the  deliberate  analysis  of  a  larger  con- 
cept. The  important  thing  to  be  considered  at  present 
is  this :  that  in  neither  type  are  the  sentences  isolated 
units.  They  are  very  essentially  related  to  one 
another.  Furthermore,  whichever  type  of  expression 
is  used  in  any  given  instance,  each  sentence  is 
related  in  thought  to  the  adjacent  ones  and  if  the 
train  of  thought  is  properly  sustained  and  adequately 
expressed,  these  relations  will  be  conveyed  to  the 
mind  of  the  hearer.  Language  is  successful  as  a 
means  of  expressing  thought  only  in  proportion  as 
it  enables  the  hearer  or  reader  not  only  to  grasp  indi- 
vidual ideas  but  to  group  these  into  a  conceptual  unit 


LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 


which  is  the  duplicate  of  that  in  the  mind  of  the 
speaker  or  writer. 

A  little  study  of  the  sentence  by  itself  will  make  the 
whole  question  more  clear.  The  analysis  of  an  idea 
separates  it  into  a  series  of  ideas  each  more  or  less 
complete  in  itself.  But  that  same  series  of  ideas 
might  conceivably  be  arrived  at  as  the  result  of  the 
analysis  of  some  quite  different  concept.  Or,  from 
the  opposite  point  of  view,  these  ideas,  combined  in 
one  way  may  be  the  component  parts  of  one  concept; 
combined  differently  they  may  be  the  component  parts 
of  a  concept  quite  different.  Take,  for  example,  the 
illustration  already  used.  The  mind  having  analyzed 
its  impression  of  the  house  visible  in  the  landscape, 
and  having  chosen  the  relevant  part,  presents  that 
part  in  the  sentence,  The  house  is  white.  There  are 
three  distinct  component  ideas  represented  by  words 
and  forming  together  the  expression  of  a  conceptual 
unit.  They  are  (1)  house,  (2)  being,  existence,  (3) 
whiteness.  Had  the  idea  originally  been.  White  houses 
exist.  That  whiteness  is  a  house,  the  three  compo- 
nent kernels  of  meaning  used  in  expressing  it  would 
have  been  the  same.  The  mere  statement  of  the  com- 
ponent elements  would  not  define  the  idea  that  the 
author  intended  to  express. 

In  presentation  therefore  in  language,  inasmuch  as 
the  object  is  to  reproduce  the  original  concept  in 
another  mind,  something  more  than  the  series  of  com- 
ponent ideas  must  be  communicated.  Each  one  must 
be  so  expressed  as  to  convey  not  only  its  essential 
underlying  concept  but  also  its  relation  to  the  other 


INTRODUCTION 


parts  and  its  importance  with  relation  to  them.  The 
words  then  which  are  used  to  express  the  analyzed 
concepts,  are  not  a  simple  series  of  bare  names  desig- 
nating the  elements  discovered  by  analysis;  in  some 
way,  the  relations  between  them  are  also  expressed. 
This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  each  word  has, 
besides  its  kernel  of  meaning,  a  function  in  the  sen- 
tence. This  function  is  very  variously  expressed.  In 
Latin,  inflectional  endings  do  perhaps  the  bulk  of  the 
work ;  but  in  all  languages,  order  of  arrangement,  the 
use  of  prepositions,  and,  in  conversation,  tone,  and 
emphasis, — these  and  other  elements  go  to  make  up 
the  expression  of  function. 

It  is  perfectly  conceivable  that  there  might  be  cir- 
cumstances under  which  such  expression  would  be 
unnecessary  and  the  mere  statement  of  the  compo- 
nent elements  would  successfully  convey  the  thought 
unit.  If  speaker  and  hearer  were  so  thoroughly  inti- 
mate that  their  accumulated  store  of  knowledge  was 
practically  the  same  and  that  their  modes  of  thought 
were  identical;  and  if  besides  this,  both  were  at  the 
time  following  the  same  line  of  thought  and  if  the  idea 
expressed  was  largely  objective,  then  the  naming  of 
the  elements  would  be  sufficient.  But  the  existence 
of  such  a  situation  is,  of  course,  a  rare  occurrence.  If 
the  relation  of  the  various  elements  to  each  other  is 
not  fully  expressed,  there  is  a  real  danger,  almost  a 
certainty,  that  the  hearer  will  combine  them  in  his 
own  way,  and  that  his  way  will  be  a  different  one 
from  the  speaker's. 

Transfer  this  reasoning  to  a   larger  field.    A  group 


8  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

of  sentences  might  be  strung  together,  each  embodying 
an  idea.  If  nothing  further  were  expressed  in  them, 
the  hearer  might  perfectly  grasp  each  of  the  ideas  pre- 
sented, but  the  total  effect  made  by  the  group  would 
depend  on  the  relations  which  he  himself  made  between 
them,  depending  on  his  own  mode  of  thought  and  atti- 
tude. To  convey  his  own  idea  of  relation,  therefore, 
or,  in  other  words,  to  convey  his  total  thought,  the 
speaker  must  express  not  only  the  individual  ideas  in 
sentences  but  also  the  relation  between  them  as  it 
exists  in  his  own  mind. 

In  dealing  with  the  individual  sentence  and  the 
words  which  are  used  to  express  its  meaning,  this  fact 
has  been  generally  accepted  and  the  means  of  express- 
ing relation  between  word  and  word  have  been  much 
studied.  This  is  by  no  means  so  true  of  the  sentences 
as  wholes.  Their  relations  to  each  other  have  not  been 
worked  out  with  the  same  thoroughness.  The  reason 
is  not  far  to  seek.  First,  there  has  been  a  failure  to 
recognize  that  all  adjacent  sentences  are  related  (at 
least  in  the  thought  of  their  author)  to  each  other,  and 
that  therefore  the  subject  of  investigation  is  really  the 
means  which  define  the  kind  of  relation.  Second,  one 
type  alone  of  sentence  connection,  and  that  the  most 
mechanical,  has  been  so  overemphasized  as  to  appear 
to  be  the  only  type.  This  is  the  conjunctional  usage. 
Handbooks  of  grammar  have  loaded  upon  conjunctions 
practically  all  the  work  of  sentence  connection,  with  a 
grudging  recognition  of  the  use  of  repetition  and 
kindred  means.  The  result  has  been  the  dangerously 
systematic  division  of  all  sentence  relations  into  co- 


INTRODUCTION 


ordinate  and  subordinate,  with  a  free  use  of  the  ill- 
defined  term  parataxis  to  describe  those  instances 
which  show  a  subordinate  relation  without  a  subordi- 
nating conjunction.  Such  a  division  implied  what  was 
generally  accepted,  that  the  remaining  sentences — 
those  without  conjunctions — were  unrelated. 

This  general  treatment  is  a  survival  of  the  period  of 
syntactical  study  before  the  psychological  side  of  lan- 
guage was  taken  into  consideration.  It  is  one-sided 
and  begins  with  a  wrong  point  of  view.  The  funda- 
mental fact  is  that  all  contiguous  sentences  in  con- 
nected discourse  are  related,  or  more  exactly,  the 
thought  units  behind  them  are  related.  The  mere  fact, 
then,  of  their  juxtaposition  indicates  to  the  reader  or 
hearer  the  fact  of  their  relation.  Just  what  is  this 
relation  which  they  bear  to  each  other,  he  must  dis- 
cover if  he  is  to  understand  what  he  hears  or  reads. 
And  it  is  for  the  speaker  or  writer  to  express  this.  If 
he  does  not  specifically  express  it,  one  of  two  possible 
results  must  follow.  First,  in  the  event  of  there  being 
only  one  conceivable  relation  between  two  adjacent 
sentences,  the  whole  thought  of  the  speaker  or  writer  is 
adequately  conveyed.  But  second,  if  more  than  one 
relation  is  conceivable — and  this  is  usually  the  fact — 
then  his  meaning  is  not  clear  and  his  audience  is  apt  to 
choose  the  wrong  relation. 

In  spoken  conversation  it  is  not  at  all  unusual  to 
hear  sentences  following  one  another  without  any 
expression  of  relation,  any  at  least  of  a  tangible 
nature,  discernible  in  the  words,  which,  however,  ade- 
quately convey  the  thought  of  the  speaker.     This  is 


10  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

made  possible  primarily  by  the  limited  audience  rather 
than  by  the  means  at  the  disposal  of  the  speaker  which 
the  writer  cannot  use.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  tone 
and  emphasis  and  other  musical  elements  enter  into  the 
expression  of  thought  relation  and  are  of  extremely 
great  importance.  But  a  little  consideration  will  show 
that  this  is  not  the  prime  factor.  It  is  necessary  only 
to  consider  various  types  of  spoken  discourse.  Ob- 
viously the  type  in  which  tangible  connectives  are 
most  conspicuously  absent  without  causing  ambiguity 
is  that  of  intimate  conversation  between  friends.  The 
audience  is  limited.  The  hearer's  knowledge  of  the 
attendant  circumstances  and  his  processes  of  thought 
approximate  those  of  the  speaker.  But  if  the  audience 
is  enlarged,  there  is  a  greater  variety  of  hearers,  each 
with  his  own  background  of  experience  and  his  own 
mode  of  thought.  To  convey  his  own  meaning,  his  own 
idea  of  thought  relation,  to  each,  the  speaker  must  be 
more  explicit.  In  addressing  a  large  and  unfamiliar 
audience  this  becomes  all  the  more  imperative. 

Now  the  same  degree  of  difference  between  types  of 
discourse  appears  also  in  written  matter.  But  inas- 
much as  the  musical  elements — including  gesture  and 
expression — are  no  longer  available,  written  matter 
requires  always  more  exactness  of  connectives  than 
spoken.  The  nearest  approach  to  the  intimate  con- 
versation is,  of  course,  a  letter.  Much  can  be  left  to 
the  understanding  of  the  friend  or,  in  other  words,  to 
the  fact  that  his  background  of  experience  and  his 
thought  processes  will  lead  him  to  combine  the  sepa- 
rately expressed  thoughts   into   a   conceptual  whole 


INTRODUCTION  11 


corresponding  to  that  from  which  the  writer  evolved 
them.  No  doubt  the  intimate  reader  of  the  letter 
imagines,  from  past  experience,  tone,  tempo,  emphasis 
and  even  gesture  and  expression.  But  with  the  audi- 
ence enlarged,  all  such  quick  appreciation  becomes  less 
probable,  and  the  same  increased  need  of  precision  is 
felt  that  was  found  in  speaking  to  a  larger  audience.  In 
the  case  of  matter  written  for  the  general  public,  the 
audience  is  indefinitely  enlarged,  till  it  includes  people 
of  different  race  and  age  from  those  of  the  writer. 

Here,  then,  the  expression  of  sentence  relation  is  of 
prime  importance.  Such,  of  course,  is  the  material  at 
the  disposal  of  the  classical  scholar,  for  this  is  just 
what  constitutes  the  texts  which  he  seeks  to  understand 
and  interpret.  He  has  before  him  exactly  what  the 
writer  considered  adequate  for  the  reproduction  of 
his  own  ideas.  To  be  sure,  he  has  a  very  different 
background  from  that  of  the  writer.  The  experience 
which  he  brings  to  bear  upon  the  interpretation  of 
what  he  reads  is  altogether  unlike  that  of  the  author, 
as  is  also  his  mode  of  thought.  These  are  likely  to  be 
different  too  from  those  of  the  first  readers  of  the 
literary  remains  of  Rome.  But  this  makes  it  all  the 
more  important  for  him  to  understand  so  far  as  possi- 
ble all  the  devices  at  the  disposal  of  the  writer  for  the 
expression  of  thought  relation. 

Obviously  conjunctions  do  not  perform  the  entire 
task.  The  relations  are  largely  expressed  by  other  and 
less  easily  recognized  means.  But  with  the  entire 
material  available — for  in  written  discourse  nothing  is 
lost  to  us  by  the  lapse  of  time — tone,  emphasis  and  so 


12  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

on  were  never  an  aid  in  written  matter — it  should  be 
possible  to  discover  just  what  means  were  actually 
used  by  Roman  writers.  It  is  not  equally  probable  nor 
even  desirable  that  these  means  appear  always  distinct 
and  clear  cut.  Language  has  never  been  a  purely 
mechanical  instrument  that  can  be  taken  down  into 
parts  susceptible  to  hard  and  fast  classification.  And 
in  the  department  under  consideration,  into  which 
rhetorical  influences,  often  extremely  subtle,  are  con- 
stantly entering,  this  is  unusually  true.  Nor  should  it 
be  expected  that  the  means  discovered  will  be  always 
simple;  it  is  more  reasonable,  in  view  of  the  other 
phenomena  of  language,  to  look  for  complex  usages, 
for  several  overlapping  types  of  usage  employed  in  a 
single  instance. 

Finally,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  no  study  of 
any  language  can  be  carried  back  to  its  most  primitive 
forms.  Especially  is  this  true  of  Latin,  in  which  all  of 
the  material  shows  the  language  in  a  comparatively 
late  and  highly  developed  stage.  Changes  of  usage 
can  be  traced,  but  the  study  of  the  origins  of  types  of 
sentence  connection  would  be  perilous.  The  practical 
necessity  at  present  is  descriptive  work,  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  means  (discovered  by  analysis)  employed  in 
the  language  to  express  the  thought  relations  that  lay 
in  the  mind  of  the  writer. 


CHAPTER  II 

INTRODUCTION  (Continued) 

The  purpose  of  the  first  chapter  was  to  present  in  a 
general  way  the  psychological  processes  which  lie 
behind  the  making  of  sentences  and  the  expression  of 
their  relations  to  one  another.  An  understanding  of 
these  processes  is  necessary  as  a  guide  to  any  study  of 
the  actual  concrete  means  which  result  from  them. 
Such  a  presentation  furnishes  the  general  principle  on 
which  must  be  answered  the  first  of  the  three  great 
questions  which  arise  with  regard  to  the  present  prob- 
lem as  they  do  with  regard  to  every  linguistic  prob- 
lem:^ first,  what  are  the  psychological  processes  be- 
hind the  linguistic  phenomena;  second,  what  are  the 
means  used  to  express  these ;  third,  what  is  the  result- 
ing linguistic  form.  The  order  in  which  these  questions 
are  put  represents  the  natural  order  of  progress  in  the 
development  of  linguistic  forms,  not  the  order  in  which 
such  forms  must  necessarily  be  investigated.  It  is 
imperative  that  the  general  psychological  principles 
should  be  clearly  in  mind  during  any  investigation,  but 
only  as  a  guide.  For  while  these  principles  answer  in 
very  general  terms  the  first  question,  they  do  not 
answer  it  specifically  for  particular  cases.     Just  as 

1  Cf.  Morris:  On  Prmciples  and  Methods  in  Syntax,  p.  115. 


U  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

they  are  the  necessary  background  for  one  who  is 
going  to  investigate,  so  in  their  application  to  each 
particular  case  they  become  the  goal  of  the  entire  in- 
vestigation. For  the  object  is  constantly  to  determine 
in  every  individual  instance  just  what  was  the  thought 
in  the  writer's  mind.  The  general  principles  on  which 
all  minds  alike  work  in  producing  sentences,  are  then 
a  guide  in  the  study  of  the  means  actually  found  in  use, 
toward  the  comprehension  of  the  exact  meaning  of  the 
writer  in  each  specific  case. 

The  practical  problem  at  present  is,  then,  to  answer 
the  second  question :  What  means  are  used  in  language 
to  express  the  relations  existing  in  the  mind  of  speaker 
or  writer  between  ideas  embodied  in  sentences?  Or, 
more  narrowly  for  the  moment.  What  means  are  so 
used  by  Latin  writers?  To  do  this,  it  is  necessary  to 
consider  the  sentences  for  the  time  being  objectively  as 
groups  of  words,  themselves  forming  groups  of  word 
combinations.  Safety,  in  such  an  investigation,  lies  in 
keeping  rigidly  to  what  is  objective  and  concrete.  It 
may  be  possible  in  conclusion  to  win  to  some  generaliza- 
tions, but  it  is  essential  first  to  discover  and  present  the 
actual  means  employed. 

The  most  natural  place  in  which  to  look  for  the 
expression  of  sentence  connection  is,  of  course,  in  the 
second  of  two  contiguous  sentences.  It  is  far  easier  to 
refer  to  what  you  have  already  said  and  to  express 
your  thought  relations  by  such  reference  than  to  pre- 
pare in  advance  for  what  you  are  going  to  say  and  so 
to  anticipate  the  relation.  It  is  not  at  all  surprising, 
therefore,  to  find  the  bulk  of  the  work  of  sentence  con- 


INTRODUCTION  15 


nection  done  in  the  second  sentence.  The  more  naive 
and  unpremeditated  the  matter,  the  more  generally  is 
this  true.  But  no  written  matter  is  unpremeditated 
and  no  Latin  that  has  come  to  us  can  be  called  naive. 
We  are  dealing  with  deliberate  and  consciously  elabo- 
rated material.  And  the  more  carefully  any  piece  of 
writing  is  elaborated,  the  greater  tendency  will  there 
be  to  anticipate  connections  in  order  to  facilitate  the 
understanding  on  the  part  of  the  reader  of  what  he  is 
reading.  It  does  not,  however,  follow  that  because 
connection  is  anticipated  in  the  first  sentence,  there 
will  be  no  further  expression  of  it  in  the  second.  Such 
reinforcement  is  very  common,  and  the  more  means 
used,  the  more  precise  will  be  the  expression  of  the 
author's  thought  relation.  The  others  reinforce  or 
further  define  the  first. 

An  analysis  of  the  means  of  sentence  connection 
actually  used  by  Latin  writers  makes  possible  a  rough 
division  into  three  groups  according  to  the  chief  ele- 
ment which  gives  to  each  its  power  to  express  thought 
relations  and  so  convey  them  to  the  reader.  The  first 
of  these  is  repetition;  the  second,  change;  the  third, 
incompleteness.  Each  requires  some  preliminary 
explanation. 

By  their  very  nature  the  first  two  can  occur  only  in 
the  second  sentence  of  any  pair.  The  first  consists  in 
the  repetition  in  the  second  sentence  of  any  element  of 
the  first,  the  element  repeated  being  the  bond  which 
unites  the  two  and  defines  their  relation.  When  a  child 
says,  ''The  man  has  a  dog.  The  dog  is  yellow,"  he  is 
unconsciously  making  use  of  this  element.    The  repeti- 


16  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tion  of  the  word  dog  holds  the  concept  behind  the  word 
before  the  mind  of  the  hearer  until  a  new  idea  is  built 
around  it.  The  same  principle  underlies  some  of  the 
most  conscious  rhetoric.  ''If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven, 
thou  art  there;  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold  thou 
art  there."  Obviously  the  effects  produced  in  these 
two  illustrations  are  very  different,  but  the  essential 
element  is  the  same.  It  must  be  constantly  remem- 
bered that  this  repetition  does  not  make  a  relation  be- 
tween the  two  sentences.  Experience  has  brought  it 
about  that  the  very  fact  of  juxtaposition  indicates  a 
relation  and  the  relation  so  indicated  existed  first  in 
the  mind  of  the  speaker.  It  will  be  found  that  repeti- 
tion does  distinctly  draw  attention  to  the  fact  of  rela- 
tion as  does  also  incompleteness,  but  its  importance 
lies  not  there  but  in  its  definition  of  that  relation.  It 
can  be  shown  to  what  extent  and  how  it  so  defines  the 
relation;  at  present  it  is  necessary  merely  to  indicate 
the  nature  of  this  particular  element. 

It  is  this  fact,  that  the  means  here  considered  are  de- 
fining rather  than  relating  means — that  the  sentences 
are  always  related  and  require  only  an  indication  of 
the  kind  of  relation — that  makes  it  possible  for  two 
such  opposite  elements  as  repetition  and  change  to 
serve  in  the  same  capacity.  They  define  different 
types  of  relation.  If  the  search  were  for  those  ele- 
ments which  made  relation  it  would  end  with  the  fact  of 
juxtaposition,  and  repetition  and  change  might  be 
from  this  point  of  view  mutually  exclusive.^  But  our 
search  is  for  all  the  means  which  define  every  possible 

1  Cf .  Miss  Nye,  p.  27. 


INTRODUCTION  17 


relation,  and  change  and  repetition  can  thus  work  side 
by  side.  Just  as  a  word  in  the  second  sentence  may 
repeat  a  word  from  the  first,  so  a  word  in  the  second 
may,  by  abrupt  change,  either  of  meaning  or  of  func- 
tion, stand  in  contrast  with  a  word  in  the  first.  '  'John 
went  sailing.  William  was  afraid."  Experience  tells 
us  that  these  sentences  are  related  because  of  their 
juxtaposition.  The  change  of  name,  together  with  the 
abrupt  change  of  meaning  in  the  predicates  of  the  two, 
defines  their  relations  as  an  adversative  one.  It  is  a 
question  to  be  considered  later  whether  such  contrast 
can  stand  independently  as  a  defining  means ;  whether 
there  is  not  present  always  some  element  of  repeti- 
tion, however  slight,  in  contrasted  sentences.  But 
assuredly  the  determining  factor  in  the  definition 
is  contrast  or  change.  It  is  obvious  that  the  use 
of  this  element  serves  less  to  point  out  the  fact  of 
relation  than  do  the  other  two.  Hence  the  fact  that  it 
will  usually  be  found  to  be  anticipated  in  some  way, 
and  hence  also  its  value  for  abrupt  rhetorical  effects. 
It  is  not  true,  however,  that  it  does  not  at  all  indicate 
the  existence  of  relation,  for  this  is  actually  done  by 
the  use  of  contrasted  words,  less  obviously  than  in  the 
case  of  repeated  words,  but  none  the  less  truly. 

The  third  element  has  a  characteristic  which  dis- 
tinguishes it  from  the  other  two :  it  may  occur  in  either 
of  the  two  sentences.  It  is  perhaps  more  patent  when 
found  in  the  second,  just  as  it  is  probably  true  that 
the  earliest  expression  of  sentence  relation  was  con- 
fined to  the  retrospective  type.  But  a  little  familiarity 
with  its  usage  makes  absolutely  clear  its  employment 


18  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

in  the  first  sentence  with  an  anticipatory  force.  It  is 
this  that  gives  it  its  great  importance.  For  one  of  the 
greatest  advances  in  clear  writing  and  one  of  the 
greatest  aids  to  rapid  understanding  of  what  is  written 
is  the  development  of  means  to  suggest  in  advance  the 
relation  of  each  sentence  to  the  one  following. 

By  incompleteness  of  meaning  nothing  so  general 
is  intended  as  the  perfectly  true  and  obvious  fact  that 
no  sentence  in  consecutive  discourse  is  complete  in 
meaning  by  itself  without  its  context.  Incompleteness 
in  its  present  use  is  something  far  more  concrete;  it 
lies  in  a  specific  word  or  phrase  whose  logical  meaning 
is  not  clear  without  reference  to  something  outside  of 
its  own  sentence.  ' 'Afterwards  John  sat  down. ' '  This 
sentence  is  syntactically  complete,  but,  by  its  very 
meaning,  ''afterwards"  is  incomplete  without  refer- 
ence to  what  has  preceded.  Again  in  the  sentence, 
"He  spoke  the  following  words,"  there  is  syntactical 
completeness  but  not  logical,  until  something  is  added 
to  give  meaning  to  "following."  Such  words  as 
deictic  pronouns,  comparatives,  verbs  in  a  relative 
tense,  these  all  have  this  connective  function  by  virtue 
of  their  incompleteness  of  meaning. 

Such  a  threefold  division  of  the  types  of  sentence 
connections  is  not  hard  and  fast.  Instances  occur  and 
occur  frequently  in  which  more  than  one  element  is 
made  use  of  and  in  which  it  is  quite  impossible  to  say 
which  has  the  determining  influence.  And  more  than 
this,  they  are  often  quite  inseparable  in  one  and  the 
same  word  employed  as  a  means  of  sentence  connec- 
tion, as  in  the  demonstrative  pronoun.    Undoubtedly 


INTRODUCTION  19 


the  demonstrative  most  frequently  repeats  the  content 
of  a  noun  from  a  preceding  sentence.  For  example, 
Tac.  Hist.  1.57.1:  Proxima  legionis  primae  hiberna 
erant  et  promptissimus  e  legatis  Fabius  Valens.  Is 
die  proximo  coloniam  Agrippinensem  .  .  .  ingressus, 
imperatorem  Vitellium  consalutavit.  Is  clearly  re- 
peats the  Fabius  Valens  of  the  first  sentence  and 
therein  lies  an  element  of  connection.  But  also  the  Is 
by  itself  is  incomplete.  Alone  it  has  no  content,  but 
by  its  very  meaning  must  refer  to  some  noun.  To  such 
an  extent  is  this  true  that  when  a  demonstrative  is 
used  and  there  is  no  noun  in  a  preceding  sentence  to 
which  it  can  refer,  its  very  incompleteness  forces  the 
reader  to  suspend  his  judgment  until  another  sentence 
or  clause  furnishes  the  key  to  its  meaning.  It  has  then 
become  an  anticipatory  means  of  expressing  thought 
relation. 

It  is  altogether  natural  that  the  two  elements  should 
be  thus  united  in  a  single  type.  The  expression  of 
thought  relation  was  not  a  deliberate  invention  but  a 
natural  development  in  language.  The  three  elements 
— repetition,  change,  and  incompleteness — were  not 
consciously  made  use  of;  at  any  rate,  not  at  first.  They 
are  discovered  only  on  analysis.  There  is  no  reason 
why  they  should  not  all  appear  in  a  single  case.  But 
this  does  not  make  it  less  practical  to  proceed  to  our 
investigation  on  the  basis  of  this  division,  for  the 
object  in  hand  is  simply  to  find,  so  far  as  possible,  all 
of  the  tangible  means  of  sentence  connection  employed, 
and  to  determine  the  relations  which  they  express.  It 
will  be  convenient  therefore  to  begin  with  the  large 


20  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

group  in  which  Repetition,  in  one  form  or  another,  is 
the  diief  factor.  For  repetition  is,  so  far  as  it  is  pos- 
sible to  judge,  the  simplest  and  most  natural  of  all  the 
means  employed.  Continuing  with  the  elements  whose 
influence  is  effective  in  the  second  sentence  of  a  related 
pair,  I  shall  take  up  next  the  principle  of  Incomplete- 
ness in  so  far  as  it  is  retrospective  in  character.  Fol- 
lowing this,  a  study  of  the  element  of  Change  will  com- 
plete the  survey  of  retrospective  means  of  connection. 
The  important  field  of  anticipation  of  relation,  that  is, 
the  study  of  those  instances  in  which  the  relation  is 
expressed  in  the  first  of  two  related  sentences,  is 
treated  in  the  next  chapter,  that  on  Anticipatory  In- 
completeness. Finally,  I  shall  discuss,  in  a  chapter 
on  Parenthetical  Incompleteness,  instances  in  which  a 
syntactically  independent  phrase  is  injected  into  the 
middle  of  a  sentence  in  such  a  way  as  distinctly  to 
modify  its  tone  or  meaning,  the  relation  between  the 
two  clauses  being  indicated  by  the  incompleteness  of 
the  injected  phrase.  This  order  of  consideration  will 
necessarily  divide  the  discussion  of  the  principle  of 
Incompleteness,  but  with  the  elements  of  the  problem 
so  interwoven  as  they  are  in  the  present  question, 
some  violence  cannot  but  be  done  to  logical  order  and 
distinct  advantages  will  be  found  in  making  the  dif- 
ferentiation between  retrospective  and  anticipatory 
means,  the  factor  to  determine  the  order  of  investi- 
gation. 


CHAPTER  III 
REPETITION 

Igitur  in  stagno  Agrippae  fahricatus  est  ratem, 
cui  superpositum  convivium  navium  aliarum  tractu 
moveretur.    Naves  auro  et  ehore  distinctae. 

These  two  sentences  from  Tacitus  {Ann.  XV.37.5) 
leave  no  doubt  in  the  reader's  mind  that  they  were 
related  to  each  other  in  the  thought  of  their  author. 
And  this  is  true  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
conjunction  to  give  warning  of  such  relation.  The 
opening  word  of  the  second  sentence  is  the  first 
mechanical  sign  of  the  relation.  It  repeats  in  its 
entirety  the  content  of  the  navium  of  the  first  sentence 
and  so  keeps  that  item  before  the  reader's  mind  until 
the  new  idea  is  built  around  it.  The  relations  in 
which  naves  finds  itself  are  therefore  quite  different 
from  those  which  surround  navium,  but  the  objects 
which  the  two  words  represent  are  identical.  If, 
instead  of  naves,  Tacitus  had  used  Jiae,  exactly  the 
same  effect  would  have  been  produced  so  far  as  the 
mental  process  in  the  reader 's  mind  is  concerned :  hae 
would  simply  have  selected  the  detail  from  the  first 
sentence  which  was  to  form  the  starting  point  of  the 
second.  Had  he  used  quae,  the  result  would  have  been 
essentially  unchanged  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  we 
should  then  have  had  what  we  call  a  subordinate  sen- 


22  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tence.  If,  for  variety's  sake,  we  substitute  lintres  for 
naves,  still  the  connecting  element  remains  the  same: 
the  content  of  navium  is  repeated  and  repeated  in  its 
entirety. 

Nam  si,  quae  nunc  temporis  causa  aut  decrevit 
senatus  aut  populus  iussit,  in  perpetuum  servari 
oportet,  cur  pecunias  reddimus  privatisf  cur  publica 
praesenti  pecunia  locamusf  cur  servi,  qui  militent  non 
emunturf  cur  privati  non  damus  remiges,  sicut  tunc 
dedimusf     (Livy  XXXIV.6.17.) 

Here  again  is  direct  repetition  of  a  word,  but  with 
an  obvious  difference.  There  is  no  concrete  or  defi- 
nite concept  represented  by  the  word  which  the  repe- 
tition serves  to  hold  before  the  reader's  mind  until  the 
new  sentence  develops  the  writer's  thought  about 
this  concrete  object  or  concept.  There  is,  in  the  pres- 
ent case,  repetition  rather  of  a  mechanical  part  of  the 
sentence;  the  chief  thing  repeated  is  really  the  func- 
tion which  the  cur  serves  rather  than  any  image  which 
it  suggests.  This  is  perhaps  more  obvious  in  a  more 
extreme  case :  Livy  XXIII.9.5 :  sed  sit  nihil  sancti, 
non  fides,  non  religio,  non  pietas;  audeantur  infanda, 
si  non  perniciem  nobis  cum  scelere  ferunt.  In  this 
instance  the  function  alone  is  repeated.  In  audeantur 
the  word  itself,  the  person,  even  the  voice  is  changed. 
Sit  and  audeantur  have  but  one  thing  in  common,  their 
subjunctive  force  expressing  a  hypothetical  command ; 
yet  this  repetition  is  sufficient  to  impress  on  the  read- 
er's mind  the  sense  of  relation  between  the  sentences 
as  it  existed  in  the  thought  of  the  writer. 

It  is  evident  that  there  are  represented  in  these 


REPETITION  23 


examples  two  distinctly  different  general  types  of 
repetition.  In  each  example  the  repetition  in  one 
sentence  of  an  element  from  another  is  the  mechanical 
sign  of  relation.  And  in  each  example  it  is  enough 
to  suggest  the  relation.  But  the  relations  so  sug- 
gested are  different.  In  the  one  instance  the  second 
sentence  represents  a  development  of  thought  from 
the  first;  it  expresses  a  new  idea  logically  proceeding 
from  the  thought  expressed  in  the  first  sentence.  In 
the  other  example  the  second  sentence  presents  a  new 
idea,  but  it  does  not  proceed  logically  from  the  first. 
It  is  rather  parallel  with  it,  proceeding  as  did  the  first 
from  something  antecedent  to  both  sentences.  In  the 
second  example,  therefore,  either  sentence  could  have 
been  omitted  by  the  writer  without  destroying  the 
sequence  of  thought  in  the  paragraph.  Fulness  of 
expression  would  have  been  sacrificed  but  not  logical 
sequence. 

The  two  types  are  not  always  sharply  defined. 
Rather  they  shade  into  each  other  and  overlap.  But, 
apart  from  the  cases  that  lie  on  the  borderline,  the 
types  are  clearly  distinct  and  the  ground  of  distinc- 
tion is  readily  discovered.  It  lies  in  the  general  char- 
acteristics of  words  as  they  are  used  in  language, 
pointed  out  in  the  first  chapter  (page  7).  That  is,  all 
words  used  in  connected  discourse  have  both  a  kernel 
of  meaning  and  a  function  in  the  sentence.  Accord- 
ing as  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  properties  is 
repeated,  we  have  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  types  of 
repetition  noted.  Semantic  and  morphological  repeti- 
tion they  might  be  called,  but  the  psychological  pro- 


24  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

cesses  are  perhaps  more  clearly  kept  in  view  if  the 
terms  '* repetition  of  content"  and  ^'repetition  of 
function"  are  retained.  These  phrases  will  also  prove 
less  confusing  in  such  instances  as  Livy  XXIV.2.10, 
in  which  apparent  repetition  of  case  has  no  bearing  on 
the  sentence  connection:  acceptique  a  plebe  primo 
impetu  omnem  praeter  arcem  cepere.  Arcem  opti- 
mates  tenehant.  The  case  of  the  word  repeated, 
arcem,  is  obviously  the  same  in  both  sentences  but  its 
function  is  not  repeated ;  clearly  this  is  an  instance  of 
repetition  of  content. 

On  the  other  hand  there  may  be  repetition  of  content 
witli  repetition  of  function.  The  substantive  used  in 
the  two  related  sentences,  representing  an  object  or  a 
concept,  may  be  in  the  same  relation  in  each  sentence 
to  the  remaining  parts  of  the  sentence.  An  example 
from  Cicero  {Pro  P.  Sulla  5.14)  will  illustrate  this: 
Multa,  cum  essem  consul,  de  summis  rei  puhlicae 
periculis  audivi,  multa  quaesivi,  multa  cognovi;  etc. 
Such  cases,  however,  belong  most  naturally  with  the 
instances  of  repetition  of  function,  which  proves  to 
be  the  determining  factor  in  expressing  the  sentence 
relations. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  illustrate  the  use  of  repeti- 
tion by  dividing  it  along  the  line  of  this  fundamental 
distinction.  After  each  type  is  amply  illustrated,  it 
will  be  easy  to  find  other  distinguishing  marks  which 
belong  to  each,  and  not  difficult,  I  think,  to  discover  the 
sentence  relations  which  each  indicates.  Finally,  it 
will  be  worth  while  to  study  the  use  of  conjunctions  in 
the  expression  of  these  same  relations,  to  determine 


REPETITION  25 


what  is  the  fundamental  element  in  the  expression, 
and  just  what  is  the  function  of  the  conjunction.  The 
repetition  of  content  alone  is  taken  first  for  illustra- 
tion because  it  has  the  appearance  of  being  the  more 
natural.  It  follows  the  line  of  simple  straightforward 
associative  thinking.  An  idea  is  selected  from  one 
sentence  and  made  the  starting  point  of  the  next. 

Repetition  of  Content 

The  essential  characteristics  of  this  type  of  con- 
nection are,  first,  a  word  in  the  second  sentence 
actually  calling  up  before  the  mind  either  some  con- 
crete object  represented  by  some  word  or  words  in  the 
first  sentence,  or  else  some  distinct  though  abstract 
concept  represented  in  the  same  way;  and  second,  the 
fact  that  in  the  two  sentences  the  words  so  used  show 
different  relations  to  the  rest  of  their  respective  sen- 
tences. It  is  obvious  that  the  clearest  examples  of 
the  usage  will  be  those  in  which  substantives  are  used, 
especially  such  cases  as  show  the  same  noun  occurring 
in  the  two  sentences.  Bed  nostra  omnis  vis  in  animo 
et  corpore  sita  est:  animi  imperio,  corporis  servitio 
magis  utimur  (Sallust,  Cat.  1.2).  Like  the  illustra- 
tion already  cited  from  Tacitus  (page  21),  this 
instance  from  Sallust  shows  a  noun  in  the  second  sen- 
tence repeated  from  the  first  but  serving  a  new  func- 
tion in  its  new  setting. 

This  is  a  very  simple  method,  perhaps  the  simplest, 
of  expressing  sentence  relation,  the  sort  of  method 
that  a  child  is  apt  to  use  when  he  begins  to  produce 


26  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

what  may  with  any  justice  be  called  consecutive  narra- 
tive. It  represents  too  a  very  simple  thought  proce- 
dure. It  is  therefore  in  the  simpler  authors  that  we 
expect  to  find  the  examples  of  it.  It  is,  however,  some- 
thing- of  a  surprise  to  find  how  largely  they  are  con- 
fined to  such  writers.  Although  the  principle  involved 
is  constantly  made  use  of  by  all  authors  of  all  periods, 
it  is  only  in  the  inscriptions  and  in  such  unadorned 
prose  as  that  of  Cato  that  this  crudest  form  of  repe- 
tition appears  with  frequency.  Cato  makes  no  attempt 
to  avoid  the  monotony  of  literal  repetition :  Eos  lapide 
consternito:  silapis  non  erit,  perticis  .  .  .  consternito: 
si  pertica  non  erit,  sarmentis  conligatis.  {R.R.  XLIII. 
1.)  The  lapide,  lapis  and  the  perticis,  pertica  illustrate 
the  point ;  the  repetition  of  consternito  and  of  si  belong 
to  a  later  discussion.  Ita  aedifices,  ne  villa  fundum 
quaerat  <.neve  fundus  villam';>.  Patrem  familiae 
villain  rusticam  bene  aedificatam  habere  expedit,  etc. 
{R.R.  III.l.)  Whether  the  words  in  brackets  are  cor- 
rectly restored  or  not,  the  villam  of  the  second  sentence 
repeats  in  its  entirety  the  content  of  the  villa  of  the 
first. 

Similar  examples,  though  rare,  are  not  lacking  in 
the  more  rhetorical  writers.  A  very  few  mil  be  suffi- 
cient to  illustrate  the  type: 

Caesar,  Bell.  Gall.  III.18.7:  ad  castra  pergunt. 
Locus  erat  castrorum  editus,  etc.  Cicero,  Pro  Quinct. 
5.22:  Itaque  ex  eo  tempore  res  esse  in  vadimonium 
coepit.  Cum  vadimonia  saepe  dilata  essent,  et  cum 
aliquantum  temporis  in  ea  re  esset  consumptum  neque 
quicquam    profectum    esset,    venit    ad    vadimonium 


REPETITION  27 


Naevius.  Livy  XXIII.10.9:  Ita  in  castra  perducitur; 
extemploque  impositus  in  navem  et  Carthaginem 
missus,  ne  .  .  .,  etc.  Navem  Cyrenas  detulit  tempes- 
tas,  etc.  Seneca,  De  Ira  II.18.1:  ea  in  educationem 
et  in  sequentia  tempora  dividentur.  Educatio  maxi- 
mam  diligentiam  plurimumque  profuturam  desiderat. 
Quint.  Inst.  Orat.  1.3.1:  Tradito  sibi  puero  docendi 
peritus  ingenium  eius  imprimis  naturamque  per- 
spiciat.  Ingenii  signum  in  parvis  praecipuum  memo- 
ria  est.  Tac.  Germ.  10.1:  Auspicia  sortesque  ut  qui 
maxime  observant:  sortium  consuetudo  simplex. 
Pliny,  Epist.  IV.22.4:  Idem  apud  imperatorem 
Nervam  non  minus  fortiter.  Cenabat  Nerva  cum 
paucis.  Sallust,  Cat,  55.2:  Ipse  praesidiis  dispositis 
Lentulum  in  carcerem  deducit;  idem  fit  ceteris  per 
praetores.  Est  in  careers  locus,  quod  Tullianum 
appellatur. 

This  last  example  from  Sallust  illustrates  a  fur- 
ther point  than  the  mere  repetition  of  content,  namely, 
that  the  word  repeated  may  occur  in  a  sentence  or 
clause  other  than  the  one  immediately  preceding.  In 
this  case  the  separating  clause  is  short  and  is  evi- 
dently treated  as  though  it  were  an  integral  part  of 
the  first  sentence.  But  often  a  word  is  repeated  from 
some  distance  back  in  the  narrative,  very  frequently 
a  proper  name.  The  nature  of  the  connection  is  not 
different;  the  intervening  sentences  are  for  the  time 
being  overlooked  or  else  their  relation  to  the  new  one 
is  expressed  by  other  means. 

Such  use  of  repetition  as  has  been  illustrated  is  a 
very  simple  and  elementary  method  of  calling  atten- 


28  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tion  to  the  relation  of  one  sentence  to  another.  The 
desire  for  variety,  the  natural  and  constant  effort, 
both  conscious  and  unconscious,  to  give  more  ''style" 
to  what  was  written  or  spoken,  led  to  the  development 
of  a  great  many  substitutes  for  this  direct  repetition, 
to  many  variations  not  always  recognizable  as  such. 
But  before  illustrating  these  it  will  be  worth  while  to 
see  just  what  this  type  of  repetition  in  its  barest  form 
indicates  as  to  the  kind  of  relation  between  sentences. 

If  speech  were  confined  to  the  representation  of 
action  in  the  most  exact  form  possible,  there  would  be 
but  one  essential  relation  which  a  sentence  could  bear 
to  its  immediate  predecessor.  For  action  follows  a 
definite  line  of  progression.  Cause  and  effect  are 
consecutive  and  cannot  be  reversed.  The  time  element 
is  the  one  important  element  in  determining  the  rela- 
tion of  event  to  event.  So,  when  language  simply  and 
accurately  represents  action,  each  sentence  is  subse- 
quent to  its  predecessor  both  temporally  and  log- 
ically. The  description  of  an  action  given  in  the  order 
of  its  occurrence  needs  nothing  to  make  clear  the  rela- 
tion between  sentences.  To  be  sure,  the  unity  given 
to  an  action  by  the  constant  presence  of  a  given  actor 
is  often  reproduced  by  the  repetition  of  a  word  repre- 
senting that  actor,  but  this  is  not  essential. 

Speech,  however,  is  freer  than  action.  It  has  license 
to  reverse  or  entirely  to  rearrange  the  order  of 
sequence.  Two  events,  actually  occurring  in  one  order 
of  sequence,  may  be  told  of  in  speech  in  the  opposite 
order,  for  speech  looks  back  upon  action  and  may  pre- 


REPETITION  29 


sent  the  details  of  the  action  as  it  will.  The  effect 
may  be  told  before  the  cause.  When,  however,  the 
natural  order  is  upset,  the  hearer  requires  warning 
of  some  sort  or  he  will  instinctively  assume  that  the 
action  is  continuous  and  that  it  took  place  in  the  order 
given.  Furthermore,  there  is  another  way  in  which 
speech  is  freer  than  action.  Speech  may  stop  to 
describe  something  or  to  give  personal  observations 
on  events  or  things.  In  other  words,  reproduction  of 
action  is  by  no  means  its  only  function.  Such  inter- 
ruptions will  not  be  reversals  or  disarrangements  of 
the  normal  order.  At  the  same  time  there  will  not  be 
the  force  of  sequence  which  is  furnished  by  the  bare 
narration  of  action  to  carry  along  the  thought  of  the 
audience.  There  will  be  necessary,  therefore,  some 
specific  warning  of  the  nature  of  the  sentence  relation. 

Transfer  this  reasoning  to  the  parallel  field  of 
speech,  the  reproduction  of  abstract  thought.  The 
same  general  facts  are  true,  although  the  time  ele- 
ment is  no  longer  the  criterion  of  relation.  Progres- 
sion is  logical  not  temporal.  And  inasmuch  as  the 
reproduction  of  thought  by  speech  is  far  more  subtle 
(the  audience  has  ordinarily  far  less  pertinent  expe- 
rience to  call  to  its  assistance),  and  as  there  is  less  apt 
to  be  one  normal  line  of  progression,  so  there  will  be 
need  of  more  specific  expression  of  thought  relation. 

There  is  still  a  further  phase  of  the  representation 
of  action  and  of  thought  to  be  considered.  As  so  far 
discussed,  both  types  of  speech  are  the  representation 
of  something  in  motion:  in  the  case  of  action,  the 
motion  is  physical,  the  motion  of  concrete  bodies:  in 


30  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

the  case  of  thouglit,  it  is  mental  and  intangible.  But 
concrete  objects  and  mental  conceptions  can  be  sta- 
tionary :  tliey  are  not  always  in  motion ;  and  language 
is  employed  to  represent  them  in  both  aspects.  De- 
scriptions of  objects,  the  exposition  of  a  single  con- 
cept, inasmuch  as  they  come  within  the  range  of 
expression  by  means  of  language,  must,  like  every 
portion  of  the  material  at  the  disposal  of  language,  be 
expressed  by  sentences,  and  the  relation  of  each  sen- 
tence to  the  adjacent  ones  must  be  expressed  within 
those  sentences.  But  in  these  cases  there  will  be  no 
order  of  progression  at  all,  either  temporal  or  logical, 
to  guide  the  reader  in  his  interpretation  except  in  so 
far  as  the  writer  may  adopt  some  arbitrary  order  to 
make  clearer  his  meaning,  which  order  then  becomes 
of  itself  a  guide  to  the  understanding  of  the  sentence 
relations. 

Whether,  therefore,  speech  represents  concrete  ob- 
jects or  abstract  thought,  or  both  together,  and 
whether  they  are  represented  as  stationary  or  in 
motion,  there  will  be  in  any  sort  of  discourse  three 
relations  which  a  sentence  may  have  to  the  one  imme- 
diately preceding  it.  It  may  be  and  usually  is  logically 
subsequent ;  it  may  be,  by  a  reversal  of  the  usual  order, 
logically  antecedent ;  or  third,  it  may  be  logically  coin- 
cident. The  time  element  may  or  may  not  enter  into 
consideration;  the  question  is  always  one  of  the  log- 
ical order  of  sequence.  In  narration  of  action  this  is 
determined  by  the  temporal  sequence.  The  third  type 
is  more  common  than  might  at  first  appear,  for  it 
includes  all  those  cases  in  which  a  number  of  sentences 


REPETITION  31 


have  all  a  common  relation  to  another  sentence,  and  it 
contains  also  all  instances  of  contrasted  sentences. 

Such  are  the  most  general  relations  possible  between 
sentences,  and  these  are  all  that  we  can  expect  to  find 
indicated  by  the  broadest  types  of  connection.  More 
exact  relations  will  be  expressed  by  the  more  exact 
and  specific  subdivisions  of  the  broad  types  of  connec- 
tion. The  examples  of  connection  by  means  of  direct 
repetition  of  meaning  fall  clearly  under  the  first  class 
of  relations.  The  sentence  in  which  the  repeated  word 
occurs  is  logically  subsequent  to  the  one  from  which 
the  word  is  repeated.  Seneca,  De  Ira  II.18.1:  Ea  in 
educationem  et  in  sequentia  tempora  dividentur.  Edu- 
catio  maximam  diligentiam  plurimumque  profuturam 
desiderat.  By  the  repetition  of  educatio  from  educa- 
tionem, Seneca  selects  one  item  from  the  first  sentence 
around  which  to  build  a  logically  subsequent  thought. 
In  such  an  instance  as  the  one  cited  (page  27)  from 
Pliny  {Epist.  IV.22.4),  the  presence  of  the  time  ele- 
ment at  first  obscures  somewhat  the  logical  relation. 
Cenabat  Nerva  cum  paucis,  presents  a  fact  contempo- 
rary with  the  fact  of  the  first  sentence:  Idem  apud 
imperatorem  Nervam  non  minus  fortiter.  This  is  indi- 
cated by  means  of  the  imperfect  tense  of  the  indica- 
tive. But  logically  the  second  sentence  carries  the 
thought  forward  and  is  subsequent,  not  coincident. 

The  commonest  device  employed  by  Roman  writers 
for  avoiding  the  actual  repetition  of  a  word  and  yet 
retaining  the  force  of  such  repetition,  in  other  words, 
for  repeating  the  content  of  a  word  by  means  of  a  new 


32  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

one,  is  the  use  of  the  demonstrative  and  relative  pro- 
nouns. When  Tacitus  writes  has  rather  than  iniurias 
in  Agr.  13.1,  it  is  only  the  form  of  expression,  not  the 
nature  of  the  connection  that  he  changes :  Ipsi  Britanni 
dilectum  ac  tributa  et  iniuncta  imperii  munera  impigre 
obeunt,  si  iniuriae  absint:  has  aegre  tolerant,  iam 
domiti  ut  pareant,  nondum  ut  serviant.  The  demon- 
strative is  an  empty  word  by  itself  and  has  meaning 
only  as  it  brings  up  before  the  mind  the  content  of  the 
word  to  which  it  points.  So  true  is  this,  that  if  there 
is  nothing  already  in  the  context  to  which  it  can  point, 
the  mind  of  the  reader  is  forced  to  look  forward,  wait- 
ing for  some  word  or  words  to  give  it  content. 

The  relative  used  with  an  antecedent  is  in  no  way 
different  in  its  connective  force  from  the  demonstra- 
tive. Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.  25.4:  Legantur  in  Africam 
maiores  natu  nobiles,  amplis  honoribus  usi.  In  quis 
fuit  M.  Scaurus.  Very  often  the  two  are  used  in  close 
juxtaposition,  the  change  serving  merely  to  avoid 
monotony.  E.g.,  Cicero,  In  Verrem  1.10.31:  cum  his 
plebeios  esse  coniunctos ;  secundum  quos  aut  nulli  aut 
perpauci  dies  ad  agendum  futuri  sunt.  One  more  pair 
of  examples  will  be  enough  to  illustrate  the  obvious 
parallelism  of  usage:  Caesar,  Bell.  Gall.  III.1.4: 
Galba  .  .  .  constituit  .  .  .  in  vico  Varagrorum,  .  .  . 
hiemare;  qui  vicus  po situs  in  valle  .  .  .  montibus 
undique  continetur.  Cicero,  De  Domo  Sua  50.130: 
Q.  Marcius  censor  signum  Concordiae  fecerat  idque  in 
publico  conlocarat.  Hoc  signum  C.  Cassius  censor,  etc. 
Innumerable  instances  are  familiar  in  which  the  rela- 
tive and  the  demonstrative  are  interchangeable.     In 


REPETITION  33 


the  defective  text  of  Tac.  Hist.  1.58.12,  it  is  impossible 
to  say  whether  the  one  or  the  other  should  be  restored 
or  whether  instead  of  either,  some  more  direct  form  of 
repetition  was  what  Tacitus  really  used:  Interim  ut 
piaculum  ohicitur  centurio  Crispinus;  < — >  sanguine 
Capitonis  <se>  cruentaverat.  It  makes  no  real  differ- 
ence whether  is  is  supplied  with  Haase,  or  qui  with 
some  much  older  editor,  or  whether  vir  is  preferred 
for  variety's  sake,  or  whether,  as  is  perhaps  most 
probable,  the  supposed  lacuna  is  really  not  a  lacuna 
and  the  subject  of  <5e>  cruentaverat  was  unex- 
pressed.^ 

More  important  to  illustrate  than  the  interchange- 
ability  of  demonstrative  and  relative,  which  is  famil- 
iar, is  the  limit  to  which  the  two  are  really  interchange- 
able. They  are  interchangeable  so  long  as  they  refer 
back  to  an  expressed  antecedent  outside  of  their  own 
clause.  Not  necessarily  to  a  definite  word :  the  relative 
may  follow  a  speech,  referring  back  to  the  whole  body 
of  it  just  as  well  as  the  demonstrative  may :  quae  cum 
dixisset  is  not  different  from  haec  cum  dixisset.  But 
the  antecedent  must  be  present  in  what  has  preceded. 
For  if  there  has  been  nothing  for  the  pronoun  to  ''re- 
peat," the  two  have  distinctly  different  effects.  The 
demonstrative,  as  noted,  simply  holds  the  mind  wait- 
ing for  something  to  follow,  that  something  being 
naturally  in  apposition  with  the  demonstrative.  This 
is  not  true  of  the  relative.  The  relative  does,  to  be 
sure,  anticipate  something  to  follow,  but  in  this  case 

1  For  further  illustration  ef .  Sentence  Connection  in  Tacitus,  pp.  62  ff. 


34  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

the  something  is  always  a  demonstrative  either  ex- 
pressed or  understood. 

How  this  came  to  be  so  is  not  hard  to  conjecture. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  glance  at  the  earlier  uses  of  the 
relative  as  they  appear  in  the  inscriptions  and  even  in 
Cato  and  as  they  are  preserved  in  later  archaisms, 
conscious  and  unconscious.  C.  I.  L.  1.197.  §3:  <CQuyei 
ex  h<iace'>  Z<e^e>  non  iouraverit,  is  magistratum 
imperiumve  nei  petito.  C.  I.  L.  1.205.  II.  line  20 :  quod- 
que  ita  factum  actum  iussum  erit,  id  ius  ratumque  esto. 
Cato,  R.R.  1.4:  qui  in  his  praedia  vendiderint,  eos 
pigeat  vendidisse.  Cato,  R.R.  CXLVIII.l:  Quod 
neque  aceat  neque  muceat,  id  dahitur.  It  is  clear  that 
the  usage  qui  transtulit,  is  sustinet,  is  older  than  the 
construction,  is,  qui  transtulit,  sustinet. 

It  will  appear  later  that  the  formal  repetition  in 
such  phrases  indicates  that  the  phrases  are  logically 
coincident.  Such  they  undoubtedly  were  at  first.  It 
was  only  when  the  first  clause  came  to  be  looked  on  as 
conditioning  the  second  that  the  idea  of  subordination 
came  in  and  the  second  clause  became  logically  subse- 
quent to  the  first.  This  was  the  process  through  which 
many  such  correlative  pairs  went.  It  is  the  explana- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  subordinating  conjunction  si. 
In  other  cases  subordination  never  developed.  Only 
the  second  member  had  an  independent  history  as  in 
the  case  of  e^  .  .  .  et.  In  several  instances  survivals 
of  the  older  correlative  uses  persisted,  as  in  cum  .  .  . 
tum,  meaning  both  .  .  .  and,  and  in  many  instances 
the    relative    and   demonstrative    were    always    used 


REPETITION  35 


largely  in  this  correlative  fashion:  e.g.,  quantus  .   .   . 
tantus,  tarn  .  .  .  quam,  ut  .  .  .  ita,  and  the  like. 

In  passing  from  its  indefinite  to  its  relative  use  in 
the  correlative  construction,  qui  acquired  its  semi- 
deictic  character,  never  so  clear  cut  as  that  of  the 
demonstrative  which  was  originally  the  second  mem- 
ber of  the  correlative  pair  and  pointed  back  to  the 
first,  but  still  fairly  strong  as  it  looked  forward  regu- 
larly to  a  demonstrative  to  follow.  When  it  came  then 
to  be  used  in  an  anaphoric  sense,  its  force  was 
primarily  that  of  repetition,  as  was  that  of  the  demon- 
strative. It  is  in  this  usage  that  the  relative  is  impor- 
tant in  the  present  study.  The  underlying  element 
which  gives  to  the  retrospective  demonstrative  and  to 
the  anaphoric  relative  their  power  to  express  sentence 
relation,  is  that  of  repetition.  Furthermore,  the  fact 
that  they  are  to  the  extent  indicated,  interchangeable, 
illustrates  clearly  the  fact  already  emphasized,  that  we 
are  here  dealing  with  repetition  of  content  only.  The 
form  matters  not  at  all.  So  long  as  the  object  or  con- 
cept behind  the  repeated  word  is  brought  up  again  be- 
fore the  mind  of  the  reader  while  a  new  idea  is  devel- 
oped around  it,  the  relation  is  expressed  by  means  of 
the  principle  of  repetition  of  content. 

Demonstratives  and  relatives  are  only  two  of  the 
many  means  that  appear  with  the  greatest  frequency 
in  all  writers,  instinctively  to  avoid  the  actual  verbal 
repetition  of  a  word  from  sentence  to  sentence.  For 
example,  if  two  of  a  man's  names  are  presumably 
familiar  to  the  reader,  it  is  very  common  to  find  one 
of  them  used  in  the  first  sentence,  the  other  in  the 


36  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

second.  The  use  of  a  title  for  the  name  produces  the 
same  effect,  and  a  descriptive  noun  of  any  sort  is 
really  no  different.  Videt  ad  ipsum  fornicem  Fa- 
bianum  in  turha  Verrem;  appellat  hominem  et  ei  voce 
maxima  gratulatur,  etc.  (Cicero,  In  Verrem  1.7.19.) 
The  hominem  in  this  instance  amounts  to  nothing  more 
than  a  demonstrative  repeating  Verrem.  Had  Cicero 
chosen  to  use  a  title  or  another  name  to  *' repeat"  the 
Verrem  the  result  would  have  been  the  same.  Tacitus 
uses  the  last  method  with  great  frequency;  e.g..  Hist. 
IV.6.12:  Hinc  inter  Helvidium  et  Eprium  acre  iur- 
gium:  Priscus  eligi  nominatim  a  magistratihus  iuratis, 
Marcellus  urnam  postulahat,  quae  consults  designati 
sententia  fuerat.  The  context  has  made  familiar  the 
names  of  Helvidius  Priscus  and  Eprius  Marcellus. 
Compare  Livy  1.27.7:  inde  eques  .  .  .  nuntiat  regi 
abire  Albanos.  Tullus  in  re  trepida  duodecim  vovit 
Salios.  Livy  XXXIV.29.13 :  tradidit  Quinctio  urbem. 
Priusquam  Gytheum  traderetur,  etc. 

A  much  wider  scope  is  given  to  this  principle  when 
it  is  applied  to  common  nouns.  The  use  of  a  synonym 
to  repeat  a  word  from  the  preceding  sentence  is  quite 
the  same  thing  as  the  use  of  a  title  or  second  name  just 
illustrated.  Sallust,  Cat.  51.18  furnishes  a  good 
instance:  Nam  profecto  aut  metus  aut  iniuria  te  sube- 
git,  Silane,  consulem  designatum,  genus  poenae  novom 
decernere.  Be  timore  supervacuaneum  est  disserere, 
etc.  There  is  no  distinction  here  between  metus  and 
timor:  they  are  synonyms;  de  metu  would  have  done 
as  well  in  the  second  sentence  aside  from  rhetorical 
considerations.    In  fact  the  very  next  sentence  begins 


REPETITION  37 


with  an  instance  of  direct  repetition :  De  poena  possum 
equidem  dicere,  etc. 

Further  examples  are:  Livy  XXXI.29.8:  sic  Sicu- 
lorum  civitatihus  Syracusas  aut  Messanam  aut  Lily- 
baeum  indicitur  concilium:  praetor  Romanus  conven- 
tus  agit,  etc.  Tac.  Ann.  II.69.8:  Turn  Seleuciam 
degreditur,  opperiens  aegritudinem.  Saevam  vim 
morbi  augehat  persuasio  veneni  a  Pisone  accepti. 
Cicero,  Pro  P.  Sulla  3.9:  Neque  ego  hoc  partiendae 
invidiae,  sed  communicandae  laudis  causa  loquor; 
oneris  mei  partem  nemini  impertio,  gloriae  bonis  omni- 
bus. In  this  last  example  the  synonyms  do  not  cover 
identically  the  same  ground;  it  is  an  open  question 
whether  they  were  intended  to,  but  there  is  sufficient 
repetition  to  illustrate  the  principle.  In  Tac.  Eist. 
V.26.6,  two  words  ordinarily  dijffierent  in  content  are 
used  as  synonyms  to  avoid  repetition  of  the  same 
word:  Cuncta  inter  nos  inimica:  hostilia  ab  illo  coepta, 
a  me  aucta  erant. 

All  of  the  instances  of  repetition  examined  so  far 
have  been  alike  in  showing  two  substantives,  one  in 
each  of  two  related  sentences  and  each  representing 
the  same  concept  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  and  there- 
fore calling  up  the  same  concept  in  the  mind  of  the 
reader.  But  the  examples  of  demonstrative  usage  and 
of  various  types  of  synonym  have  shown  that  repeti- 
tion of  the  exact  word,  any  repetition  of  externals,  is 
quite  unnecessary:  content  alone  is  important.  So  it 
is  not  difficult  to  understand  the  very  numerous  cases 
in  which  no  longer  one  substantive  repeats  another, 
but  in  which  the  essential  content  of  one  part  of  speech 


38  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

repeats  that  of  another.  The  repetition  is  less  com- 
plete in  that  the  functions  of  the  two  words  are  now 
more  widely  different  than  they  were  when  both  mem- 
bers of  the  repeating  pair  were  of  the  same  part  of 
speech.  But  the  effect  is  unchanged:  the  kernel  of 
meaning,  stripped  of  its  functional  garb,  is  still  the 
fixed  landmark  in  the  second  sentence  to  guide  the 
reader  to  the  thought  relation. 

A  few  examples  of  the  repetition  of  a  word  in  which 
that  word  is  not  a  noun  but  a  verb  will  serve  to  make 
even  more  clear  the  fact  that  it  is  the  repetition  of 
content,  that  is,  of  the  concept  behind  the  word,  that 
is  the  important  thing  in  the  present  type  of  repetition. 
Also  they  will  make  the  instances  to  follow  more  clear. 
Cato  makes  constant  use  of  this  type  in  his  unrhetori- 
cal  style:  e.g.,  R.R.  LXXIV.l:  suhigitoque  pulchre. 
Ubi  bene  suhegeris,  defingito  coquitoque  sub  testu.  In 
this  example,  as  in  practically  all  of  this  group,  the 
change  of  verb  form  has  its  very  important  influence 
in  defining  the  relation  of  sentence  to  sentence.  But 
the  repetition  of  the  verb  content  is  the  first  indicator : 
the  functional  change  corresponds  roughly  to  the 
change  of  case  in  the  examples  with  nouns.  Compare 
Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  13.43:  Pecunia  mea  tot  annos 
utitur  P.  Quinctius.  TJtatuur  sane,  non  peto.  Seneca, 
De  Vita  Beata  24.1:  numquam  magis  nomina  facio 
quam  cum  dono.  ''Quid?  tu"  inquis  ''recepturus 
donas?"  Tac.  Ann.  XV.67.6:  "Oderam  te"  inquit, 
''nee  quisquam  tibi  fidelior  militum  fuit,  dum  amari 
meruisti.  Odisse  coepi  postquam  parracida  matris  et 
uxoris,  auriga  et  histrio  et  incendiarius  extitisti/' 


REPETITION  39 


If  the  second  sentence  shows  the  gerund  of  a  verb 
used  in  the  first,  the  transition  to  the  type  indicated 
above  in  which  the  kernel  of  meaning  is  repeated  in  a 
new  part  of  speech,  has  already  been  made.  Such  a 
case  is  Caesar,  Bell.  Gall.  II.l.l:  certior  fiebat,  omnes 
Belgas  .  .  .  coniurare,  obsidesque  inter  se  dare.  Con- 
iurandi  has  esse  causas:  etc.  In  III.l.l,  misit  is  simi- 
larly taken  up  by  causa  mittendi.  Tacitus,  with  his 
passion  for  variety,  tends  to  use  a  synonym  in  the 
gerund  rather  than  the  same  verb;  e.g.,  Ann.  XVI.15. 
2:  Eo  missus  centurio,  qui  caedem  eius  maturaret. 
Causa  festinandi  ex  eo  oriebatur  quod  Ostorius,  etc. 
But  this  usage  will  be  illustrated  more  fully  later. 
And  even  Tacitus  does  not  always  use  a  synonym: 
Germ.  26.3 :  quos  mox  inter  se  secundum  dignitationem 
partiuntur;  facilitatem  partiendi  camporum  spatia 
praestant. 

With  such  instances  as  those  just  cited  in  mind,  a 
few  examples  of  nouns  repeating  the  kernel  of  mean- 
ing of  verbs  in  preceding  sentences  will  be  sufficient. 
C.  I.  L.  1.603,  line  9,  furnishes  a  good  example:  TJbi 
venum  datum  erit,  id  profanum  esto.  Venditio  locatio 
aedilis  esto,  etc.  Compare  Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  1.2.7: 
Intercedit  M.  Antonius,  Q.  Cassius,  tribuni  plebis. 
Refertur  confestim  de  intercessione  tribunorum.  Sen- 
eca, De  Vita  Beata  24.2:  "Quid?  tu"  inquis  " recep- 
turus  donas?"  Immo  non  perditurus :  eo  loco  sit  dona- 
tio unde  repeti  non  debeat,  reddi  possit.  Cicero,  In 
Verrem  1.6.16:  Mansit  in  condicione  atque  pacto 
usque  ad  eum  finem,  dum  iudices  reiecti  sunt.  Post- 
eaquam  reiectio  iudicum  facta  est  .  .   .  renuntiata  est 


40  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tota  condicio.  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  34.96:  "Non 
possum"  inquit  '' divinare."  Eo  rem  iam  adducam, 
ut  nihil  divinatione  opus  sit.  Tac.  Germ.  12.7 :  Equo- 
rum  pecorumque  numero  convicti  multantur.  Pars 
muUae  regi  vel  civitati,  pars  ipsi,  qui  vindicatur,  vel 
propinquis  eius  exsolvitur. 

These  instances  are  almost  identical  with  those  in 
which  the  gerund  repeated  the  verb ;  the  last  one  sug- 
gests a  wider  application  of  the  principle.  For  while 
multae  repeats  the  kernel  of  meaning  in  multantur,  it 
does  it  in  a  different  way,  for  example,  from  that  in 
which  reiectio  in  the  Verres  passage  repeats  the  kernel 
of  meaning  in  reiecti  sunt.  Multae  is  not  the  name  of 
the  action  represented  by  the  verb  multantur.  Both 
nouns  have  behind  them  the  same  original  concept  but 
the  noun  represents  the  thing  extracted  from  the  con- 
victed, not  the  act  of  extraction.  Similar  to  this  is 
such  an  instance  as  that  in  Tac.  Hist.  II.64.4,  in 
which  the  noun  represents  the  doer  of  the  act  repre- 
sented in  the  verb:  atque  ibi  interfici  iussit.  Longum 
interfectori  visum,  etc. 

Provided  the  original  kernel  of  meaning  is  repeated, 
the  effect  is  always  the  same :  it  may  be  repeated  in  the 
reverse  direction,  noun  to  verb,  or  an  adjective  may 
take  up  the  concept.  Livy  XXL49.11 :  usque  ad  lucem 
portu  se  ahstinuerunt,  demendis  armamentis  eo  tem- 
pore aptandaque  ad  pugnam  classe  ahsumpto.  Ubi 
inluxit,  recepere  classem  in  altum,  etc.  Cato,  R.R. 
II.7 :  servum  morbosum,  et  siquid  aliut  supersit,  ven- 
dat.  Patreni  familias  vendacem,  non  emacem  esse 
oportet.     Cato,  R.R.  XCVI.l:  Deinde  lavito  in  mari: 


REPETITION  41 


si  aquam  marinam  non  hahehis,  facito  aquam  salsam, 
ea  lavito.  Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.26.120,  offers  an  inter- 
esting illustration  of  the  possible  variation  of  the  repe- 
tition, always  using  the  same  stem:  Qui  vero  nihil 
potest  dignum  re  .  .  .  efficere  .  .  .  is  mihi  .  .  .  impu- 
dens  videtur.  Non  enim  faciendo  solum  quod  decet 
sed  non  faciendo  id  quod  non  decet  impudentiae  nomen 
effugere  debemus.  Quern  vero  non  pudet  .  .  .  hunc 
ego  .  .  .  poena  dignum  puto.  The  conjunctions  are 
supplementary,  used  because  of  the  position  of  the 
repeating  verbs  late  in  the  sentences. 

Furthermore,  and  quite  naturally,  corresponding  to 
the  simple  use  of  a  synonym,  there  are  numerous 
instances  of  repetition  of  the  kernel  of  meaning  simi- 
lar to  these  last,  but  with  the  repeating  word  no  longer 
showing  any  similarity  of  root  but  only  of  meaning. 
These  are  especially  interesting  as  indicating  the  ex- 
tent to  which  this  type  of  repetition  was  available  for 
use.    It  will  be  worth  while  to  quote  several  examples : 

Livy  XXXIV.46.5:  Consul  ubi,  quanta  copiae, 
quanta  fiducia  esset  hosti,  sensit,  nuntium  ad  collegam 
mittit,  ut,  si  videretur  ei,  maturaret  venire:  se  tergi- 
versando  in  adventum  eius  rem  extracturum.  Quae 
causa  consuli  cunctandi,  eadem  Gallis  .  .  .  rei  matu- 
randae  erat,  etc.  This  example  is  cited  for  the  use  of 
cunctandi  which  takes  up  the  kernel  of  meaning  in 
rem  extracturum.  But  it  is  an  interesting  example  of 
the  way  in  which  various  types  of  repetition  are  used 
in  a  single  instance.  Aside  from  the  cunctandi,  con- 
suli is  direct  repetition  of  the  consul,  and  Gallis  is  here 
equivalent  to  hostibus,  repeating  the  hosti  of  the  first 


42  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

sentence.  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  22.61,  furnishes  an 
instance  in  which  the  repetition  is  delayed  but  without 
any  change  in  the  nature  of  the  connection.  De  par- 
ricidio  causa  dicitur;  ratio  ah  accusatore  reddita  non 
est,  quam  oh  eausam  patrem  filius  oeciderit.  Livy 
XXIIL8.4:  vietusque  patris  preeihus  laerimisque 
etiam  ad  eenam  eum  eum  patre  vocari  iussit,  eui  eon- 
vivio  neminem  Campanum  praeterquam  hospites  .  .  . 
adhihiturus  erat.  Epulari  eoeperunt  de  die,  etc.  Tac. 
Ann.  1.52.1 :  Nuntiata  ea  Tiherium  laetitia  curaque 
adfecere:  gaudehat  oppressam  seditionem,  sed  quod 
largiendis  pecuniis  et  missione  festinata  favorem 
militum  quaesivisset,  hellica  quoque  Germanici  gloria 
angehatur.  Tac.  Germ.  27.6:  Lamenta  ac  lacrimas 
cito,  dolorem  et  tristitiam  tarde  ponunt.  Feminis 
lugere  honestum  est,  viris  meminisse. 

One  more  extension  of  the  usage  along  this  line  was 
possible  and  in  many  ways  it  is  the  most  important. 
For  upon  it  depends  the  understanding  of  many  of 
those  sentences  which  are  apparently  independent  but 
are  in  reality  explanatory  in  each  case  of  the  preceding 
sentence.  In  such  instances  there  often  seems  at  first 
to  be  no  visible  sign  of  sentence  relation  and  if  the 
progress  of  thought  is  not  familiar  or  obvious,  the  rela- 
tion is  left  obscure.  But  a  further  examination  usu- 
ally shows  that  in  the  absence  of  actual  repetition  of  a 
word  or  its  equivalent  or  of  a  root  or  its  equivalent, 
there  is  used  in  the  second  sentence  a  word  which  falls 
naturally  into  some  fairly  obvious  common  category 
with  a  word  in  the  first.  The  effect  is  that  of  repetition 
of  an  element  of  meaning.    But  it  is  probably  arrived 


REPETITION  43 


at  by  a  different  mental  process  from  that  which  leads 
to  the  understanding  of  repetition  in  a  synonym.  Be- 
tween the  concept  behind  the  first  word  or  phrase  and 
that  behind  the  second,  or  repeating,  word  or  phrase 
there  is  an  intermediate  concept  embracing  both.  This 
tertium  quid  serves  as  a  link  between  the  two,  so  that 
the  association  is  not  immediate. 

For  example,  the  opening  sentences  of  Caesar's 
Bellum  Alexandrinum  run  as  follows:  Bello  Alexan- 
drino  conflato,  Caesar  Rhodo  atque  ex  Syria  Ciliciaque 
omnem  classem  arcessit;  Greta  sagittarios,  equites  ah 
rege  Nahataeorum  evocat;  tormenta  undique  conquiri 
et  frumentum  mitti,  auxilia  adduci  iubet.  The  name 
Rhodo  in  connection  with  Syria  and  Cilicia  suggests 
more  than  a  mere  place.  The  most  prominent  char- 
acteristic of  Rhodes  which  it  possesses  in  common  with 
Syria  and  Cilicia  is  that  of  being  a  Roman  dependency. 
In  this  larger  concept  Greta  is  also  included  so  that 
there  is  an  element  of  repetition  in  its  use  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  sentence.  Again  classem  in  the 
first  sentence  suggests  the  larger  concept  of  military 
forces  in  its  widest  application  and  in  this  larger  con- 
cept are  embraced  sagittarios  and  equites  as  well  as 
tormenta,  frumentum,  and  auxilia. 

Slightly  different  is  such  a  case  as  Livy  XXXIV. 
52.10:  7^56  deinde  Quinctius  in  urhem  est  invectus. 
Secuti  Gurrum  milites  frequentes.  The  phrase  est 
invectus  suggests  a  concrete  picture  of  Quinctius 
riding  into  the  city  in  triumphal  array.  A  part  of  the 
picture  is  the  chariot  in  which  he  rides,  the  currum  of 
the  second  sentence.     Tac.  Agr.  12.1:  quaedam  na- 


44  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tiones  et  curru  proeliantur.  Honestior  auriga,  clientes 
propugnant.  In  this  example  curru  proeliantur  sug- 
gests the  concept  of  the  warrior  in  his  chariot  with  a 
driver  and  horses,  the  picture  familiar  to  the  Roman 
from  his  Homeric  reading.  This  general  concept 
includes  the  auriga  of  the  second  sentence. 

The  difference  between  the  two  types  is  that  in  the 
first,  Rhodo  and  Creta  are  equivalent  elements  of  the 
larger  concept,  while  in  the  second,  currus  is,  in  one 
example,  a  part  of  a  concept  really  suggested  in  toto 
by  est  invectus,  and,  in  the  other  example,  with  the 
addition  of  proeliantur,  it  presents  a  whole  concept  of 
which  only  a  small  part  is  considered  in  the  second 
sentence. 

Further  examples  of  the  first  type  are :  Caesar,  Bell. 
Gall.  IIL9.8:  His  initis  consiliis  oppida  muniunt,  fru- 
menta  ex  agris  in  oppida  comportant,  naves  in  Vene- 
tiam  .  .  .  cogunt.  Socios  sibi  ad  id  helium  Ossimos 
.  .  .  adsciscunt ;  auxilia  ex  Britannia  .  .  .  arcessunt. 
Tac.  Germ.  23.1 :  Potui  humor  ex  hordeo  aut  frumento, 
in  quandam  similitudinem  vini  corruptus:  proximi 
ripae  et  vinum  mercantur.  Cibi  simplices,  agrestia 
poma,  etc.  In  this  instance  potui  and  cihi  are  equiva- 
lent elements  of  a  common  concept.  So,  in  the  follow- 
ing illustration,  Peripateticis  and  Academici  are  united 
by  their  common  relationship  to  the  more  general 
category  of  rhetorical  schools:  Tac.  Dial.  31.26:  ad 
hos  permovendos  mutahimur  a  Peripateticis  aptos  et 
in  omnem  disputationem  paratos  iam  locos.  Dahunt 
Academici  pugnacitatem,  Plato  altitudinem,  etc. 

The  following  examples  will  illustrate  the  second 


REPETITION  45 


type  outlined :  Caesar,  Bell.  Alex.  III.l :  TJrhs  fertilis- 
sima  et  copiosissima  omnium  rerum  apparatus  sug- 
gerehat.  Ipsi  homines  ingeniosi  atque  acutissimi. 
Urbs,  a  populated  city,  connotes  homines  populating 
it.  Cato,  R.R.  XIV.4:  Villa  <err>  lapide  calce.  Fun- 
damenta  supra  terram  pede,  ceteros  parietes  ex  latere 
.  .  .  indito.  Tac.  Ann.  XV.3.9 :  Et  quia  egena  aquarum 
regio  est,  castella  fontihus  inposita;  quosdam  rivos 
congestu  harenae  ahdidit.  This  last  illustration  would 
fall  under  the  first  type  if  fontihus  and  rivos  stood 
alone.  But  the  larger  common  concept  is  expressed  in 
aquarum. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  all  of  these  instances  there 
is  not  actual  or  virtual  repetition  of  a  concept  in  the 
first  sentence  but  either  association  by  means  of  a  ter- 
tium  quid,  or  repetition  of  a  part,  not  named  but  im- 
plied, of  some  concept  presented  in  the  first  sentence. 

There  remain  two  prominent  types  of  repetition  of 
content.  The  one  is  that  in  which  the  repeating  word 
sums  up  in  itself  the  meaning  of  more  than  a  word  or 
phrase,  the  other,  that  in  which  it  repeats  a  part  only 
of  another  word.  The  former  is  of  two  sorts.  First, 
the  summary  word  may  be  a  descriptive  noun  refer- 
ring to  a  definite  piece  of  text  in  an  objective  way. 
Such  is  the  word  orationem  in  the  familiar  phrase, 
orationem  excepere,  used  after  the  report  of  a  speech. 
Second,  the  summary  word  may  summarize  in  itself 
the  significance  of  what  has  preceded,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, in  such  a  phrase  as  terrorem  auxit,  following  the 
account  of  some  panic.  The  first  is  too  familiar  and 
too  obvious  to  require  any  illustration  whatever.    It  is 


46  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

very  similar  to  the  use  of  ho^no  to  repeat  a  man's 
name.  Moreover,  the  oratio  or  whatever  the  word 
used  may  be,  very  frequently  goes  back  in  reference  to 
some  actual  words  used  in  introducing  the  quotation  or 
description,  the  body  of  text  referred  to,  so  that  the 
repetition  belongs  really  to  one  of  the  types  already 
described.  The  use  of  the  neuter  plural  of  the  demon- 
strative or  relative  will  suggest  itself  at  once  in  this 
connection :  haec  dixit,  for  example,  or  quae  cum  audi- 
verat.  Very  often  a  descriptive  noun  is  added  to  make 
the  repetition  a  little  more  explicit:  haec  verba,  quod 
responsum;  and  the  general  plural,  omnia,  has  the 
same  function  as  the  pronoun  in  this  usage. 

The  second  of  these  two  classes  of  summary  repe- 
tition will  be  made  equally  obvious  by  one  or  two 
illustrations.  Whereas  the  first  class  corresponded 
roughly  to  the  repetition  of  one  substantive  by  another 
having  the  same  content,  this  second  class  corresponds 
in  the  same  general  way  to  those  cases  which  showed 
the  repetition  of  the  kernel  of  meaning  in  a  new  part 
of  speech  and  with  a  new  root.  Livy  devotes  consid- 
erable space  (XXXIV.27)  to  the  outrages  of  Nabis. 
In  section  nine  he  ends  this  account  with  the  following 
statement:  Hoc  terrore  ohstipuerant  multitudinis 
animi.  The  terrore  summarizes  the  effect  of  the  sec- 
tions preceding,  without  repeating  any  single  element 
in  them.  So  causam  confusionis  (Tac.  Hist.  III.  38. 
14)  follows  an  account  of  distracted  actions.  In  the 
following  examples  the  matter  summarized  is  less 
extensive  but  the  principle  is  the  same.  Caesar,  Bell. 
Gall.  VI.13.6:  Si  qui  aut  privatus  aut  populus  eorum 


REPETITION  47 


decreto  non  stetit,  sacrificiis  interdicunt.  Haec  poena 
apud  eos  est  gravissima.  Pliny,  Epist.  IIL7.1 :  Modo 
nuntiatus  est  Silius  Italicus  in  Neapolitano  suo  inedia 
finisse  vitam.  Causa  mortis  valetudo.  Suet.  Titus  4: 
Tribunus  militum  et  in  Germania  et  in  Britannia 
meruit.  .  .  .  Post  stipendia  foro  operam  dedit.  Tac. 
Hist.  IV.40.12:  Repeti  inde  cognitionem  inter  Muso- 
nium  Rufum  et  Publium  Celerem  placuit,  damna- 
tusque  Publius  et  Sorani  manibus  satis  factum.  Insig- 
nis  publica  severitate  dies  ne  privatim  quidem  laude 
caruit. 

Such  a  pair  of  sentences  as  the  following  from  Cicero 
{Topica  19.73)  will  perhaps  make  clear  what  has  been 
mentioned  as  repetition  of  partial  content :  sed  auctori- 
tatem  aut  natura  aut  tempus  adfert.  Naturae  auctori- 
tas  in  virtute  est  maxitna,  etc.  If  we  consider  the 
phrase  aut  natura  aut  tempus  as  a  single  concept,  the 
subject  of  adfert,  then  the  naturae  is  repeating  but 
a  part  of  that  concept;  the  other  part  is  taken  up  by 
a  repetition  of  tempus  in  what  follows.  In  such  a  case 
there  is  actual  literal  repetition  of  an  entire  concept 
which,  simply  for  illustration,  I  have  chosen  to  look 
on  as  part  of  a  larger  concept.  Compare  with  this 
Livy  XXIII.32.1 :  Consules  exercitus  inter  sese  divi- 
serunt.  Fabio  exercitus  Teani  .  .  .  evenit;  Sempronio 
volones,  qui  ibi  erant,  etc.  Here  is  a  difference  but 
not  a  very  great  one.  There  is  no  longer  literal  repe- 
tition, but  Fabio  and  Sempronio  each  repeat  a  part  of 
the  content  of  consules.  Together  they  are  the  con- 
tent of  consides,  as  surely  as  though  the  word  had 
been  displaced  by  the  phrase  Fabius  et  Sempronius. 


48  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

This  is  sufficiently  obvious  to  need  no  further  illustra- 
tion. Its  commonest  application  is  in  the  use  of  the 
correlatives  alius  .  .  .  alius,  pars  .  .  .  alii,  quidam 
.  .  .  ceteri,  and  the  like.  It  is  used  also  when  a  part 
only  of  a  concept  behind  a  noun  in  the  first  sentence 
is  referred  to  in  the  second  by  such  means  as  the 
following:  pars,  quidam,  optimus  quisque,  qui  parati 
erant,  acriores,  etc.,  the  rest  of  the  original  concept 
being  ignored.  A  descriptive  noun,  an  adjective,  a 
clause,  anything  which  differentiates  a  part  of  the  con- 
tent of  a  noun  in  the  first  sentence  and  makes  that  part, 
in  the  second,  the  beginning  of  a  new  clause,  is  an 
example  of  this  ** partial  repetition." 
-  Before  leaving  the  illustration  of  repetition  of  con- 
tent, it  will  be  well  for  the  sake  of  completeness  to  cite 
a  few  instances  in  which  such  repetition  is  implicit. 
These  do  not,  of  course,  differ  in  principle  from  the 
instances  of  actually  expressed  repetition.  In  the 
Germania  (32.7),  Tacitus  says:  Inter  familiam  et 
penates  et  iura  successionum  equi  traduntur :  excipit 
filius,  non  ut  cetera,  maximus  natu,  sed  prout  ferox 
hello  et  fnelior.  Clearly  equos  is  understood  with  the 
excipit.  There  may  be  some  question  as  to  whether  it 
is  the  incompleteness  of  excipit  alone  or  the  implicit 
repetition  which  has  the  greatest  influence  in  defining 
the  sentence  relation;  but  implicit  repetition  of  the 
content  of  a  substantive  is  surely  present.  Whether 
equos  be  used  in  the  second  sentence  or  hos  or  quos  or 
animalia  or  whether,  as  is  the  case,  the  specific  word  be 
left  to  implication,  the  effect  is  the  same,  and  the  prin- 
ciple utilized  is  the  same.    In  Seneca,  Ad  Helviam  I.l, 


REPETITION  49 


it  is  rather  the  kernel  of  meaning  in  the  substantive 
form  consolandi  that  is  repeated  by  implication  in  verb 
form :  Saepe  iam,  mater  optima,  impetum  cepi  conso- 
landi te,  saepe  continui.  TJt  auderem,  multa  me  impel- 
lebant,  etc.  Two  examples  from  Tacitus  will  show  how 
clearly  the  repetition  is  implied.  In  Ann.  XV.49.1,  he 
writes :  Initium  coniurationi  non  a  cupidine  ipsius  fuit. 
But  in  38.4,  of  the  same  book  after  speaking  of  the 
great  fire,  he  has  merely:  Initium  in  ea  parte  circi 
ortum,  quae  Palatino  Caelioque  montibus  contigua  est. 
Cicero  very  frequently  repeats  by  implication  the 
entire  verbal  idea  of  the  first  sentence,  usually  forming 
a  question  in  the  second.  One  of  many  examples  is 
Pro  P.  Sulla  13.36 :  Ah  Allohrogihus  nominatum  Sullam 
esse  dicis.  Quis  negatf  In  the  following  examples  it 
is  rather  a  summary  noun  that  is  implied.  Quint.  Inst. 
Orat.  1.11.18:  Neque  id  veteribus  Romanis  dedecori 
fuit;  argumentum  est  sacerdotum  nomine  ac  religione 
durans  ad  hoc  tempus  saltatio,  etc.  Livy  1.58.7 : 
Ceterum  corpus  est  tantum  violatum,  animus  insons: 
mors  testis  erit.  Tac.  Ann.  1.7.17 :  Literas  ad  exercitus 
tamquam  adepto  principatu  misit,  nusquam  cuncta- 
bundus  nisi  cum  in  senatu  loqueretur.  Causa  prae- 
cipua  ex  formidine,  etc.  Similar  examples  might  be 
multiplied,  but  in  no  instances  do  they  show  any  real 
difference  from  the  types  of  actually  expressed  repeti- 
tion. 

There  is,  however,  a  type  of  repetition  of  content  not 
expressed  in  separate  words  which  is  of  some  interest 
and  importance.  This  comprises  those  instances  in 
which  the  subject  of  a  verb  is  understood  from  the  pre- 


50  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

ceding  sentence  and  repeated  only  by  means  of  the 
person  of  the  verb.  Such  instances  are  not  really  dif- 
ferent from  those  in  which  a  direct  object  is  assumed 
in  the  second  sentence,  or  a  limiting  genitive,  or  the 
like.  But  a  caution  is  necessary.  At  a  casual  glance 
this  method  of  repetition  would  seem  much  more 
common  than  it  really  is.  For  those  instances  in  which 
the  subject  of  the  main  verb  in  each  sentence  is  the 
same  and  is  therefore  repeated  by  means  of  the  person 
of  the  second  verb,  are  practically  never  instances  of 
content  repetition.  It  is  true  that  there  is  repetition 
of  content.  But  this  is  not  the  determining  force. 
That  is  regularly  repetition  of  function.  This  will  be 
more  clear  after  the  study  of  functional  repetition  in 
the  next  chapter,  but  it  can  be  indicated  now.  Sallust, 
Cat.  52.22,  has  the  following:  Pro  his  nos  habemus 
luxuriam  atque  avaritiam,  publice  egestatem,  privatim 
opulentiam.  Laudamus  divitias,  sequimur  inertiam. 
The  three  verbs  have  the  same  subject  as  shown  by  the 
person.  But  that  subject  does  not  pick  an  item  from 
the  preceding  sentence  around  which  to  build  a  new 
idea.  It  repeats  an  item  exactly  and  in  the  same  form 
and  in  the  same  relative  position  and  in  the  same  use  in 
each  sentence.  It  emphasizes  parallelism  rather  than 
logical  advance.  All  of  these  points  will  be  found  to 
be  indications  of  the  second  large  type  of  repetition, 
the  functional.  Furthermore  such  use  of  verb  person 
is  regularly  supported  by  repetition  of  tense  and  mood. 
Veni,  vidi,  vici  (Suet.  Julius  37),  is  a  good  instance. 
Eepetition  of  subject  there  surely  is,  but  it  "is  not  the 
sort  of  repetition  that  has  been  studied.    Further  con- 


REPETITION  51 


sideration  of  functional  repetition  will  show  that 
person,  tense,  and  mood  all  contribute  to  indicate  the 
coincidence  of  the  clauses  and  that  this  is  deliberately 
used  here  in  rhetorical  fashion  to  depict  the  rapidity 
of  action,  amounting  to  actual  coincidence. 

This  does  not  mean  that  there  is  not  any  use  at  all  of 
the  person  of  the  verb  to  correspond  to  the  common  use 
of  implied  object.  The  implied  object  too  might  be 
used  in  this  functional  fashion  but  as  a  matter  of  fact 
it  was  not  so  used  to  any  great  extent.  With  the 
implied  subject  the  proportions  are  reversed.  How- 
ever, such  cases  as  the  following  show  that  content 
repetition  could  be  implied  by  the  person  of  the  verb : 
Cato,  R.R.  1.4:  Ad  villam  cum  venies,  videto,  vasa  tor- 
cula  et  dolia  multane  sint:  ubi  non  erunt,  scito  pro 
ratione  fructum  esse.  The  subject  of  the  erimt  in  the 
second  sentence  is  the  vasa  and  dolia  of  the  first.  It 
is  an  item  taken  from  the  first  and  used  in  a  new  con- 
struction in  the  second,  which  advances  the  logical 
progress  of  the  thought.  There  is  not  a  wide  field  for 
this  usage.  It  was  not  precise  enough  and  so  the  sub- 
ject of  the  second  verb  was  usually  expressed.  The 
great  field  for  the  efficient  use  of  the  repetition  of  the 
person  of  the  verb  will  be  found  discussed  in  the  next 
chapter. 

An  analysis  of  the  instances  in  which  some  form  of 
repetition  of  content  appears  as  a  connecting  element 
shows  something  beyond  what  was  noted  after  study- 
ing those  cases  which  showed  repetition  of  an  actual 
word.     With  the  exception  of  some  of  the  cases  in 


52  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

which  it  is  merely  the  common  category  of  two  words 
that  furnishes  the  element  of  repetition,  all  of  the 
instances  studied  show  the  second  sentence  subsequent 
(logically)  to  the  first.  But  on  more  careful  examina- 
tion there  prove  to  be  at  least  three  types  of  relation- 
ship indicated.  In  the  majority  of  cases  the  second 
sentence  is  merely  subsequent  in  logical  order.  An 
item  of  fact  or  observation  is  added  to  the  first  sen- 
tence, the  repeating  word  acting  as  the  point  of  de- 
parture for  this  new  thought.  In  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  cases,  however,  the  second  sentence  is  distinctly 
explanatory  of  the  first,  and  in  a  smaller  number  it 
expresses  the  result  of  the  fact  stated  in  the  first. 

For  example,  in  such  an  instance  as  Pliny,  Epist. 
IV.9.3,  there  is  nothing  more  indicated  by  the  repeti- 
tion of  the  name  Rufus  than  that  here  is  offered  a  new 
item  connected  with  the  preceding  by  the  fact  that  it 
makes  its  point  of  departure  the  Rufus  of  the  first 
sentence:  Egit  contra  eum  Pomponius  Rufus,  vir 
paratus  et  vehemens;  Rufo  suecessit  Theophanes.  But 
in  Cato,  R.R.  III.l,  a  further  element  is  obvious:  Ita 
aedificas,  ne  villa  fundum  quaerat  <ineve  fundus 
villamy.  Patrem  familiae  villam  rusticam  bene  aedifi- 
catam  habere  expedit.  The  second  sentence  clearly 
gives  the  reason  for  the  first.  This  is  not  at  all 
common  in  instances  of  the  actual  repetition  of  a  word ; 
it  does  occur,  however,  now  and  then,  as,  for  example, 
Cicero,  Pro  P.  Sulla  31.89 :  Non  iam  de  vita  P.  Sullae, 
iudices,  sed  de  sepultura  contenditur;  vita  erepta  est 
superiore  iudicio,  nunc,  ne  corpus  eiciatur,  laboramus. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  fairly  common  with  the  less 


REPETITION  53 


direct  types  of  repetition.  Tac.  Germ.  27.6 :  Lamenta 
ac  lacrimas  cito,  dolorem  et  tristitiam  tarde  ponunt. 
Feminis  lugere  honestum  est,  viris  meminisse.  Cicero, 
Pro  P.  Sulla  3.9:  Neque  ego  hoc  partiendae  invidiae 
sed  communicandae  laudis  causa  loquor;  oneris  mei 
partem  nemini  impertio,  gloriae  bonis  omnibus. 

The  following  example  shows  the  reverse  of  the  rela- 
tion just  illustrated.  Instead  of  explanation  the 
second  sentence  shows  the  result  of  the  statement  in 
the  first.  Tac.  Hist.  V.23.1:  Civilem  cupido  incessit 
navalem  aciem  ostentandi;  complet  quod  biremium 
quaeque  simplici  ordine  agebantur.  An  even  clearer 
case  is  the  following  with  actual  repetition  of  the  iden- 
tical word :  Caesar,  BelL  Civ.  1.5.4 :  Et  de  amplissimis 
viris,  tribunis  plebis,  gravissime  acerbissimeque  decer- 
nitur.  Profugiunt  statim  ex  urbe  tribuni  plebis  sese- 
que  ad  Caesarem  conferunt. 

The  instances  of  repetition  of  category  require 
separate  consideration.  The  two  types  express  two 
sorts  of  sentence  relation.  When  the  related  words  in 
the  two  sentences  are  equivalent  parts  of  a  larger  con- 
cept through  which  their  relation  to  each  other  becomes 
apparent,  there  is  no  longer  repetition  of  meaning 
from  one  sentence  to  the  other.  The  two  sentences  are 
parallel  and  not  consecutive.  On  the  other  hand,  when 
a  part  of  the  whole  concept  suggested  in  the  first 
sentence  is  used  in  the  second,  there  is  such  repetition, 
and  the  regular  relation  of  sentence  to  sentence  is 
found.  The  first  type  is  found  largely  in  cases  of 
contrast,  the  second  is  an  important  factor  in  an 
understanding  of  explanatory  clauses. 


54  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

For  example,  Livy  XXII.4.3:  Baliares  ceteramque 
levem  armaturam  post  montis  circumducit ;  equites  ad 
ipsas  fauces  saltus  tumults  apte  tegentibus  locat.  The 
repetition  of  the  historical  present  merely  supplements 
the  effect  of  the  parallelism  established  by  the  use  of 
two  military  names  expressing  parts  of  the  same 
general  concept,  exercitus.  The  prominent  positions 
emphasize  the  change  which  is  borne  out  in  the  post 
montis  and  ad  fauces  saltus,  producing  contrast.  The 
following  sentences  from  Quintilian  {Inst.  Orat, 
III.4.9)  will  further  illustrate  the  point,  in  this  case 
with  parallelism  but  without  contrast.  Anaximenes 
iudicialem  et  contionalem  generates  partes  esse  voluit 
.  .  .  Protagoran  transeo,  qui  interrogandi,  respon- 
dendi  .  .  .  partes  solas  putat.  Plato  in  Sophiste 
iudiciali  et  contionali  tertiam  adiecit  .  .  .  Isocrates  in 
omni  genere  inesse  laudem  ac  vituperationem  existi- 
mavit.  In  these  sentences,  Anaximenes,  Protagoras, 
Plato,  Isocrates,  all  belong  to  a  common  category,  they 
are  all  rhetoricians.  There  is  no  repetition  except 
through  the  common  factor  and  this  serves  to  make 
them  all  parallel  to  each  other  instead  of  consecutive. 

On  the  other  hand,  Cato,  R.R.  VII.l,  shows  the 
second  type  of  repetition  of  category  and  a  very  dif- 
ferent relation  between  sentences  is  the  result:  Fun- 
dum  suhurhanum  arbustum  maxime  convenit  habere. 
Et  ligna  et  virgae  venire  possunt,  et  domino  erit  qui 
utatur.  The  arbustum  includes  in  the  concept  behind 
it  the  ligna  and  the  virgae  of  the  second  sentence.  The 
relation  of  the  second  sentence  to  the  first  is  explana- 
tory.   In  the  follomng  sentences  from  Caesar  {Bell. 


REPETITION  55 


Gall.  III.23.8),  I  think  that  the  prima  luce  of  the 
second  sentence  is  similar  repetition  of  category  from 
the  posterum  diem  of  the  first :  Hac  re  ad  consilium 
delata  uhi  omnes  idem  sentire  intellexit,  posterum 
diem  pugnae  constituit.  Prima  luce  productis  omnibus 
copiis  .  .  .  quid  hostes  consilii  caperent,  exspectahat. 
The  relation  is  one  of  result. 

The  following  examples  will  supplement  the  ones 
already  given.  They  all  show  repetition  of  the  less 
obvious  sorts,  ranging  from  demonstratives  and 
synonyms,  through  repetition  of  root,  to  summary 
repetition  of  content.  In  all  of  them  the  second  sen- 
tence is  explanatory  of  the  first. 

Seneca,  De  Brev.  Vit.  20.1 :  Cum  videris  itaque  prae- 
textam  saepe  iam  sumptam,  cum  celebre  in  foro  nomen, 
ne  invideris:  ista  vitae  damno  parantur.  Cicero,  In  Q. 
Caec.  14.44:  Numquani  ille  me  opprimet  consilio, 
numquam  ullo  artificio  pervertet,  numquam  ingenio  me 
suo  lahefactare  atque  infirmare  conahitur;  novi  omnes 
hominis  petitiones  rationesque  dicendi.  Cato,  R.R. 
II.7 :  hoves  vetulos,  armenta  delicula  .  .  .  ^  et  siquid 
aliut  supersit,  vendat.  Patrem  familias  vendacem,  non 
emacem  esse  oportet.  Tac.  Ann.  XV.15.10:  Vologeses 
armis  et  corporihus  caesorum  aggeratis,  quo  cladem 
nostram  testaretur ,  visu  fugientium  legionum  ahsti- 
nuit:  fama  moderationis  quaerehatur,  postquam  super- 
hiam  expleverat.  Seneca,  De  Tranq.  An.  1.4::  ita  in 
amicorum  legendis  ingeniis  dahimuus  operam,  ut  quam 
minime  inquinatos  adsumamus:  initium  morbi  est 
aegris  sana  miscere. 


56  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

The  principle  of  repetition  of  content  is  evidently 
made  use  of  to  indicate  in  a  very  general  way  that  the 
sentence  in  which  the  repetition  occurs  is  logically 
subsequent  to  the  one  from  which  the  concept  is  re- 
peated. Various  forces  determine  into  which  of  three 
types  these  instances  fall.  The  second  sentence  may 
indicate  merely  an  additional  item;  or  it  may  indi- 
cate the  result  of  the  first  sentence:  or,  third,  it  may 
indicate  the  explanation  of  the  first  sentence.  A 
vagueness  in  the  first  sentence  leads  to  the  third  of 
these  usages.  This  will  be  much  more  obvious  after  a 
study  of  the  types  of  anticipation  (Chapter  VI). 
Aside  from  this,  the  meaning  of  the  words  have  the 
greatest  influence  in  determining  the  type.  Very 
often  it  might  be  far  from  clear  if  it  were  not  for  the 
use  of  a  conjunction.  Like  the  prepositions  in  case 
usages,  the  conjunctions  seem  to  have  come  in  to  make 
more  clear  and  precise  the  definition  of  relation.  It  is 
therefore  instructive  to  note  what  conjunctions  are 
used  in  instances  in  which  repetition  of  content  ap- 
pears, and  whether  or  not  they  make  any  essential 
difference  in  the  sentence  relation. 

The  conjunctions  which  I  have  noted  occurring  with 
repetition  of  content  are  the  ones  which  would  be 
expected  from  a  study  of  the  cases  mthout  conjunc- 
tions. Et,  -que,  and  atque  appear  not  infrequently. 
In  this  use  they  indicate  simply  a  subsequent  fact  or 
idea  added  to  the  preceding  sentence.  Nam  and  enim 
occur  very  often  and  mark  the  explanatory  second  sen- 
tences, while  igitur,  itaque,  ergo,  and  quare  mark 
sentences  indicating  result.     Furthermore,  there  are 


REPETITION  57 


a  good  many  instances  of  sentences  characterized  by 
repetition  of  content  in  which  are  used  in  addition 
autem  and  vero.  At  first  this  seems  to  refute  the 
conclusion  drawn  above,  but  a  study  of  the  instances 
will  show  that  these  conjunctions  are  used  not  in  their 
adversative  but  in  their  resumptive  sense  and  are 
therefore  quite  in  harmony  with  the  results  thus  far 
obtained. 

Cato,  R.R.  XXX.l,  will  furnish  a  good  example  of 
exact  repetition  of  a  word,  indicating  simple  succes- 
sion of  ideas,  supplemented  by  the  use  of  et:  Ovihus 
frondem  viridem,  usque  dum  habebis,  praebeto:  ubi 
sementim  facturus  eris,  ibi  oves  delectato:  et  frondem 
usque  ad  pabulum  matura.  The  next  sentence — pabu- 
lum aridum  quod  condideris  in  hiemem  quam  maxime 
conservato — shows  the  same  sort  of  repetition  without 
the  et.  For  the  other  types  of  repetition  the  follow- 
ing examples  will  be  sufficient  illustration. 

Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.9.38:  quorum  pater  homo  pru- 
dens  et  gravis,  .  .  .  maxume  censor  saluti  rei  publicae 
fuit.  Atque  is  non  accurata  quadam  orationis  copia 
sed  nutu  atque  verbo  libertinos  in  urbanas  tribus  tran- 
stulit.  Tac.  Ann.  IV.15.15:  Egitque  Nero  gratias  ea 
causa  patribus  atque  avo,  laetas  inter  audientium  ad- 
fectiones,  qui  recenti  memoria  Germanici  ilium  aspici, 
ilium  audiri  rebantur.  Aderantque  iuveni  modestia 
ac  forma  principe  viro  digna.  Tac.  Ann.  XI.38.6 :  Ne 
secutis  quidem  diebus  odii  gaudii,  irae  tristitiae,  ullius 
denique  humani  adfectus  signa  dedit,  non  cum  laetan- 
tes  accusatores  aspiceret,  non  cum  filios  maerentes. 
luvitque  oblivionem  eius  senatus  censendo  nomen  et 


58  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

effigies  privatis  ac  publicis  locis  demovendas.  Tac. 
Ann.  IV.15.14:  decrevere  Asiae  urhes  templum 
Tiberio  matrique  eius  ac  senatui.  Et  permissum 
statuere. 

The  following  illustrate  the  use  of  et,  -que,  and  atque 
to  mark  clearly  the  succession,  in  sentences  united  to 
each  other  by  repetition  of  subject  through  the  verb 
forms :  Caesar,  Bell.  Gall.  V.19.1 :  Cassivellaunus  .  .  . 
itinera  nostra  servahat  paulumque  ex  via  excedehat 
locisque  impeditis  .  .  .  sese  occultabat  atque  .  .  . 
pecora  et  homines  ex  agris  in  silvas  compellehat  et 
.  .  .  essedarios  ex  silvis  emittebat  et  magno  cum  peri- 
culo  nostrorum  equitum  cum  iis  confligebat  atque  hoc 
metu  latius  vagari  prohibebat.  Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp.  V. 
4.10 :  Socrates  autem  primus  philosophiam  devocavit  e 
caelo  et  in  urbibus  conlocavit  et  in  domus  etiam  intro- 
duxit  et  coegit  de  vita  et  moribus  rebusque  bonis  et 
malis  quaerere.  There  is  the  same  doubt  in  these 
instances  that  there  was  in  those  without  conjunctions 
as  to  whether  the  events  are  intended  to  be  presented 
as  consecutive  or  as  practically  simultaneous.  Both 
elements  are  present. 

In  the  case  of  nam  and  enim  repetition  of  content  is 
so  common  as  to  be  almost  regular.  These  conjunc- 
tions do  not  seem  to  have  attained  the  same  independ- 
ent standing  that  et  and  -que  had  reached  in  this  re- 
spect. For  example,  in  Cicero,  Pro  Archia  9.21,  enim 
is  used  with  the  actual  repetition  of  an  exact  word: 
qui  libri  non  modo  L.  Lucullum,  fortissimum  et  claris- 
simum  virum,  verum  etiam,  populi  Romani  nomen 
illustrant.     Populus   enim  Romanus  aperuit  Lucidlo 


REPETITION  59 


imperante  Pontum.  The  populus  Romanus  in  the  sec- 
ond sentence  is  the  tag  which  connects  that  sentence 
with  the  first  and  indicates  it  to  be  logically  subse- 
quent. The  enim  marks  the  exact  type  of  relation  to 
make  it  absolutely  clear.  The  following  illustrations 
call  for  no  comment: 

Pliny,  Epist.  IV.10.4:  Moretur  ergo  in  libertate 
sinentibus  nobis,  fruatur  legato,  quasi  omnia  diligen- 
tissime  caverit.  Cavit  enim  quae  heredes  bene  elegit. 
Pliny,  Epist.  IV.17.1:  Quod  admones  gratias  ago, 
quod  rogas  queror.  Admoneri  enim  debeo,  ut  sciam, 
rogari  non  debeo,  ut  faciam,  quod  mihi  non  facere 
turpissimum  est.  (The  preceding  sentence  began: 
Et  admones  et  rogas,  ut  suscipiam  causam  Corelliae.) 
Nepos,  Milt.  1.5:  illi  irridentes  responderunt  turn  id 
se  facturos,  cum  ille  domo  navibus  profectus  vento 
aquilone  venisset  Lemnum.  Hie  enim  ventus  ab  sep- 
temtrionibus  oriens  adversum  tenet  Athenis  proficis- 
centibus.  Cato,  R.R.  V.4:  Segetem  ne  defrudet:  nam 
id  infelix  est.  Sallust,  Cat.  46.2:  At  ilium  ingens  cura 
atque  laetitia  simul  occupavere.  Nam  laetabatur 
intellegens  coniuratione  patefacta  civitatem  periculis 
ereptam  esse,  etc.  Tac.  Ann.  IV.3.3:  Placuit  tamen 
occultior  via  et  a  Druso  incipere,  in  quem  recenti  ira 
ferebatur.  Nam  Drusus  impatiens  aemuli  .  .  .  inten- 
derat  Seiano  manus,  etc. 

With  ergo,  itaque,  igitur,  and  quare  the  case  is  dif- 
ferent. These  conjunctions  rarely  occur  with  repeti- 
tion. The  reason  seems  to  be  that  these  words  were 
not  yet  completely  developed  as  conjunctions  and  the 
meaning  of  their  origin  was  still  unconsciously  felt. 


60  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

itself  containing  the  element  of  repetition.  This  is 
especially  seen  in  qua  re  in  which  the  repetition  is 
clearly  expressed  in  the  words  themselves.  In  itaque 
the  adverbial  force  of  the  ita  was  the  connecting  ele- 
ment and  igitur  and  ergo  presumably  contain  similar 
elements.  In  these  last  two,  however,  the  inherent 
repetition  was  not  so  obvious  and  the  following  illus- 
trations show  their  use  with  repetition  in  the  second 
sentence:  Cicero,  Topica  2.9:  lus  civile  est  aequitas 
constituta  lis,  qui  eiusdem  civitatis  sunt,  ad  res  suas 
optinendas;  eius  autem  aequitatis  utilis  cognitio  est; 
utilis  ergo  est  iuris  civilis  scientia.  Livy  XXXIV.23. 
4:  apparebat  incessi  Aetolos.  Igitur  Alexander,  prin- 
ceps  gentis,  invectus  primum  in  Atlieniensis ,  etc. 

There  remain  the  cases  of  repetition  reinforced  by 
the  so-called  adversatives,  autem  and  vero.  The  usage 
is  most  frequent  in  such  works  as  the  Topica  of  Cicero 
in  which  definitions  play  a  great  part,  as,  for  example^ 
11.47:  Deinceps  locus  est  quae  e  contrario  dicitur. 
Contrariorum  autem  genera  plura.  Or  again,  24.91: 
Nam  iudicii  finis  est  ius,  ex  quo  etiam  nomen.  Iuris 
autem  partes  tum  expositae,  cum  aequitatis.  The 
same  thing  is  seen  in  the  De  Orat.  1.42.189:  Tum 
sunt  notanda  genera  et  ad  certum  numerum  pauci- 
tatemque  revocanda.  Genus  autem  id  est,  quod  sui 
similis  communione  quadam,  specie  autem  differentis, 
duas  aut  pluris  complectitur  partis.  Partes  autem 
sunt,  quae  generibus  iis,  ex  quibus  manant,  suhiciuntur. 
Compare  further,  Seneca,  De  Tranq.  An.  13.3 :  nee  ilU 
omnia  ut  voluit  cedunt,  sed  ut  cogitavit:  inprimis  au- 
tem cogitavit  aliquid  posse  propositis  suis  resistere^ 


REPETITION  61 


Cicero,  Ad  Att.  1.19.4:  Huic  toti  rationi  agrariae  sena- 
tus  adversahatur  suspicans  Pompeio  novam  quandam 
potentiam  quaeri;  Pompeius  vero  ad  voluntatem  per- 
ferendae  legis  incubuerat. 

It  is  probably  due  again  to  the  inherent  meaning  of 
the  conjunction  that  these  particular  adversatives  are 
used  in  this  way  and  not  the  rest.  But  the  origin  is 
not  altogether  certain. 

From  the  instances  cited,  and  these  might  be  multi- 
plied indefinitely,  it  is  clear  that  repetition  is  the 
fundamental  element  in  the  expression  of  the  sentence 
relation,  whether  a  conjunction  is  used  or  not.  This 
element  may  lie  in  a  conjunction  as  well  as  in  any  other 
word,  thus  giving  to  it  an  independent  power  to 
express  sentence  relation,  but  aside  from  such 
instances,  the  conjunctions  are  purely  supplementary 
until,  by  familiarity,  they  acquire  the  force  which 
enables  them  to  express  a  relation  originally  conveyed 
by  more  fundamental  means.  Normally  the  conjunc- 
tions make  obvious  and  precise  a  relation  which  is 
already  expressed. 

Repetition  of  Function 

The  second  general  type  of  repetition  is  that  in 
which  repetition  of  function  either  stands  alone  or, 
if  accompanied  by  repetition  of  content,  is  the  domi- 
nant factor.  When  the  force  of  this  usage  is  not 
obscured  by  the  presence  of  other  elements  of  sen- 
tence  connection,   the   difference   from   the   previous 


62  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

types  is  obvious.  Pater  familias  uhi  ad  villam  venit, 
uhi  larem  familiarem  salutavit,  fundum  eodem  die,  si 
potest,  circumeat.  (Cato,  R.R.  ILL)  Uhi  has  no  inde- 
pendent concept  behind  it;  it  really  has  no  independ- 
ent meaning.  Its  repetition  therefore  does  not  serve 
to  hold  up  before  the  mind  some  concept  already  repre- 
sented in  the  first  sentence,  about  which  the  second  is 
developed.  It  rather  forces  the  mind  to  recognize  the 
presence  of  the  same  construction  that  was  used  in  the 
other  clause,  and  to  feel  at  once  that,  for  some  reason, 
the  writer  has  intended  a  similarity  between  the  two 
sentences;  that  the  repetition  is  not  a  mere  point  of 
departure  in  the  second  sentence,  but  an  actual  re- 
tracing of  the  path  to  a  point  of  departure  common  to 
both  sentences.  The  fact  that  in  this  instance  the 
remainder  of  the  sentences  is  so  very  nearly  identical, 
serves  materially  to  supplement  the  force  of  the 
repeated  uhi. 

The  same  effect  will  be  seen  in  the  case  of  a  repeated 
relative:  Cicero,  Pro  P.  Sulla  2.4:  omnes  qui  adsunt, 
qui  lahorant,  qui  salvum  volunt,  pro  sua  parte  atque 
auctoritate  defendunt.  Each  relative  clause  is  practi- 
cally bracketed  with  the  others ;  no  net  advance  in  the 
sentence  is  made  with  each  additional  relative  clause, 
but  an  item  is  added  coincident  with  those  already 
given.  Seneca,  De  Const.  Sap.  15.2:  si  non  tangent 
ilium  parva,  ne  maiora  quidem;  si  non  tangent  pauca, 
ne  plura  quidem.  Here  the  parallel  structure  is  car- 
ried through  the  sentences  as  in  the  Cato  example,  but 
that  only  makes  it  the  more  obvious.  The  essential 
characteristic  is  the  same :  the  repetition  is  not  one  of 


REPETITION  63 


content,  holding  up  a  precise  concept  before  the  mind 
for  the  purpose  of  proceeding  with  the  train  of 
thought.  The  repetition  here  rather  retards  the  train 
of  thought,  in  order  to  expand  an  idea  before  pro- 
ceeding. 

An  interesting  instance  is  Cicero,  In  Q.  Caec. 
6.21:  Cur  nolint,  etiam  si  taceant,  satis  dicunt;  verum 
non  tacent;  tamen  iis  invitissimis  te  offeresf  tamen  in 
aliena  causa  loquere?  tamen  eos  defendes,  qui  se  ah 
omnibus  desertos  potius  quam  abs  te  defensos  esse 
maluntf  tamen  iis  operam  tuam  pollicebere,  qui  te 
neque  velle  sua  causa  nee,  si  cupias,  posse  arhitran- 
tur?  This  time  it  is  no  longer  a  so-called  subordinat- 
ing conjunction  that  is  repeated  nor  a  relative  pro- 
noun which  introduces  a  subordinate  clause.  The 
clauses  in  which  the  repeated  word  occurs  are  not 
further  paralleled  by  being  all  subordinate  to  a  com- 
mon clause.  The  conjunction  is  an  adversative;  the 
clauses  are  main  clauses.  Nevertheless  the  repetition 
of  tamen  takes  the  thought  back  each  time  to  the  same 
starting  point,  in  other  words,  brackets  the  clauses, 
indicating  a  common  relation  to  the  clause  preceding. 
The  effect  is  reinforced  by  the  sameness  of  construc- 
tion. 

The  use  of  tamen  in  this  type  of  repetition  is  at  once 
suggestive  of  the  use  of  other  conjunctions  of  a  simi- 
lar sort.  For  of  course  conjunctions  are  peculiarly 
adapted  to  this  usage,  having  behind  them  no  clear  cut, 
independent  concept.  The  correlative  pairs  rest  for 
their  force  primarily  on  this  principle,  and  the  points 
in  which  they  differ  from  the  examples  already  cited 


64  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

are  particularly  instructive.  For  example,  in  the 
correlative  use  ot  et  .  .  .  et:  Ah  hac  et  verhorum  copia 
alitur  et  eorum  constructio  et  numerus  liberiore  qua- 
dam  fruitur  licentia.  (Cicero,  Orator  12.37.)  The 
first  et  has  no  meaning  by  itself.  Being  an  empty 
word  with  no  independent  concept  behind  it,  it  can  of 
itself  convey  no  meaning  to  the  reader.  Its  function 
is  simply  to  establish  this  parallelism  which  is  given 
by  the  repetition  of  function  already  illustrated.  With 
the  second  et,  the  situation  becomes  clear.  The  antici- 
patory force  of  the  first  member  of  such  a  pair  will 
be  considered  in  a  later  chapter;  at  present  the  ele- 
ment of  repetition  and  its  use  to  mark  parallelism  of 
clauses  is  to  be  noted.  The  result  is  not  a  logical 
advance  of  the  thought  but  an  amplification  at  a  point 
to  which  the  thought  has  already  attained. 

To  return  once  more  to  the  repetition  of  the  subor- 
dinating conjunctions.  Cicero  constantly  employed 
this  device.  Such  piling  up  of  conditional  clauses  as 
si  quis  error  alicunde  extitit,  si  paupertas  momordit, 
si  ignominia  pupugit,  etc.  {Tusc.  Disp.  III.34.82),  is 
almost  a  mannerism.  But  a  further  point  than  the  rep- 
etition of  the  si  must  be  noted,  namely,  the  fact  that  all 
of  the  si  clauses  are  related  directly  to  the  same  con- 
cluding clause.  This  and  the  common  element  of 
meaning  running  through  the  words  used  in  the  si 
clauses  determine  precisely  the  clause  relations.  They 
are  all  parallel  to  each  other :  any  of  them,  all  of  them 
in  fact  save  any  one,  might  be  eliminated  without 
changing  the  logical  progress  of  the  sentence;  noth- 
ing would  be  lost  except  the  elaboration  of  one  mem- 


REPETITION  65 


ber.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  si  clauses  had  each  its 
own  conclusion,  there  might  be  a  very  different  rela- 
tion between  them.  The  repetition  of  function  would 
still  exercise  its  same  force.  The  clauses  would  still 
be  logically  abreast,  not  tandem;  but  the  precise  rela- 
tion would  most  probably  be  one  of  contrast.  For 
example,  Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  12 Al :  Si  neglegentiam 
dices,  mirahimur,  si  bonitatem,  ridehimus;  etc.  Or 
again,  Cicero,  In  Q.  Caec.  18.58:  Hie  tu  si  laesum 
te  a  Verre  esse  dicis,  patiar  et  concedam;  si  iniuriam 
tibi  factam  quereris,  defendam  et  negabo;  etc. 

The  same  principle  will  be  found  active  with  other 
conjunctions:  it  will  need  only  a  cursory  illustration. 
Compare,  for  example,  with  the  instance  of  ubi  clauses 
cited  above  from  Cato,  the  following  from  Tac.  Agr. 
9.9:  ubi  conventus  ac  indicia  poscerent,  gravis  inten- 
tus  severus,  et  saepius  misericors ;  ubi  officio  satis 
factum,  nulla  ultra  potestatis  persona.  Compare  such 
a  case  of  contrast  as  Cato,  R.R.  XLIV.l,  with  Tac.  Ann. 
IV.70.7.  The  repetition  gives  to  the  clauses  of  each 
the  same  fundamental  relation :  they  are  logically  con- 
temporaneous;  but  the  specific  relation  is  just  oppo- 
site in  the  two  cases.  Cato :  Qua  locus  recte  ferax  erit, 
quae  arida  erunt  .  .  .  eximito.  Qua  locus  ferax  non 
erit,  id  plus  concidito  aratoque.  Tacitus:  Quo  inten- 
disset  oculos,  quo  verba  acciderent,  fuga  vastitas, 
deseri  itinera  for  a.  Such  an  instance  as  the  follow- 
ing from  Pliny,  Epist.  IV.17.1,  is  one  of  very  many 
similar  ones  in  his  letters  and  also  throughout  Latin 
literature:  quod  admones,  gratias  ago,  quod  rogas, 
queror.     In  all  such  cases  the  functional  repetition 


66  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

determines  in  the  broadest  way  the  sentence  relation — 
the  two  sentences  are  coincident.  If  no  further  means 
of  connection  appear  or  if  further  repetition  of  func- 
tion reinforces  the  first,  the  relation  indicated  is  one 
of  parallelism.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  some  abrupt 
change  is  introduced,  the  sentences,  while  still  coinci- 
dent, are  in  contrast  with  each  other. 

But  the  instances  of  contrast  are  the  subject  of  a 
later  chapter  (Chapter  V).  Sufficient  illustration  of 
this  functional  repetition  of  conjunctions  has  been 
given  to  indicate  its  characteristics:  the  repetition  is 
not  merely  one  of  content  (in  conjunctions  it  is  very 
nearly  impossible  to  discover  any  real  content),  it  is 
rather  the  formal  repetition  of  the  word  itself  for  the 
sake  of  the  mechanical  paralleling  of  the  two  clauses. 
And  to  further  this  effect  there  is  usually  further  repe- 
tition of  words,  forms,  or  word  order  in  the  rest  of  the 
second  sentence  or  clause. 

If  a  noun  or  a  pronoun  instead  of  a  conjunction  is 
repeated  after  this  manner,  such  repetition  is  never- 
theless distinguishable  from  repetition  of  content, 
already  found  to  be  so  frequent  with  nouns.  In  the 
first  place,  it  will  be  remembered  that  the  actual  repe- 
tition of  the  same  word  in  any  form,  was  in  reality 
one  of  the  least  common  types  of  content  repetition; 
furthermore,  that  when  it  did  occur,  the  form  of  the 
word  was  almost  never  the  same  in  the  two  sentences, 
and,  finally,  that  the  repeated  word  was  usually  in  very 
different  actual  positions  in  the  two  sentences:  well 
along  in  the  first  sentence,  most  frequently  near  the 
beginning  of  the  second.    Now  in  this  type  of  repeti- 


REPETITION  67 


tion,  that  of  function,  the  word  repeated  is  more  regu- 
larly repeated  exactly  and  with  the  form  unchanged, 
and  its  position  in  the  two  sentences  is  regularly  the 
same.  The  effect  produced  also  is  usually  reinforced 
by  further  repetition.  The  usage  with  a  substantive 
is  not  at  all  common  in  comparison  with  the  repeti- 
tion of  conjunctions.  "We  are  not  unfamiliar  with  it 
in  English.  "Charity  suffereth  long  and  is  kind; 
charity  envieth  not;  charity  vaunteth  not  itself,  etc." 
The  repetition  of  the  word  charity  is  a  good  example 
of  the  type  under  consideration:  the  form,  the  posi- 
tion, the  supplementary  repetition  are  all  typical  of 
this  group. 

Cicero  says  in  Pro  P.  Sulla  5.14 :  Multa,  cum  essem 
consul,  de  summis  rei  publicae  periculis  audivi,  multa 
quaesivi,  multa  cognovi.  And  again  in  In  Catilinam 
IV.1.2 :  ego  multa  tacui,  multa  pertuli,  multa  concessi, 
multa  meo  quodam  dolore  in  vestro  timore  sanavi. 
This  is  by  no  means  a  rare  usage  in  Cicero.  The  effect 
is  more  emphatic  than  if  he  had  said:  multa  tacui  (et) 
pertuli  (et)  concessi  (et)  sanavi.  Ordinarily,  such  use 
of  conjunctions  is  considered  the  sign  of  a  rather  crude 
and  primitive  style,  but  Cicero  seems  in  reality  to  be 
resorting  to  a  more  primitive  type  of  sentence  con- 
nection, namely,  connection  by  means  of  repetition. 
In  the  De  Orat.  1.53.230,  is  a  similar  instance :  Nemo 
ingemuit,  nemo  inclamavit  patronorum,  nihil  cuiquam 
doluit,  nemo  est  questus,  nemo  rem  puhlicam  implora- 
vit,  nemo  supplicavit.  The  interesting  thing  in  this 
illustration  is  the  change  to  the  impersonal  use  in  the 
nihil  cuiquam  doluit.     The  repetition  of  the  negative 


68  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

and  of  the  tense  is  sufficient  to  carry  the  sense  of  paral- 
lelism even  when  the  form  of  nemo  is  changed  to  cui- 
quam  with  the  negative.  So  in  Seneca,  De  Vita  Beata 
20.3,  after  a  series  of  sentences  all  beginning  with  ego, 
there  follows  a  series  without  the  ego,  the  force  of  the 
verb  form  being  quite  sufficient  to  establish  the  rela- 
tion. And  in  Seneca,  De  Otio  5.2,  the  repetition  of  the 
chief  substantive  form  is  not  exact :  Haec  res  ad  spec- 
tacula  populos  contrahit,  haec  cogit  praeclusa  rimari. 
Perhaps  better  than  either  illustration  is  one  from 
Livy  XXI.10.10:  Carthagini  nunc  Hannibal  vineas 
turresque  admovet,  Carthaginis  moenia  quatit  ariete. 
At  first  the  Carthaginis  would  seem  to  show  the  char- 
acteristics of  content  repetition.  But  the  effect  of  its 
position  is  supported  by  the  further  marks  of  paral- 
lelism in  the  rest  of  the  sentence:  the  repetition  of 
subject,  the  verb  form,  the  sentence  structure  as  a 
whole. 

Not  infrequently  it  is  a  verb  that  is  directly  and 
exactly  repeated  and  so  gives  the  chief  warning  of 
parallelism,  the  same  supplementary  indications  being 
present  as  in  the  instances  with  substantives.  Cicero, 
In  Verrem  1.8.21 :  Cupiebam  dissimulare  me  id  moleste 
ferre,  cupiebam  animi  dolorem  vultu  tegere  et  tacitur- 
nitate  celare.  Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  10.36 :  Nego  fuisse 
causam,  cur  postularet;  nego  ex  edicto  possidere 
potuisse;  nego  possedisse.  In  each  of  these  two  exam- 
ples is  seen  the  same  principle  that  was  present  in 
the  conjunctional  or  substantival  cases.  One  item  in 
the  first  sentence  is  in  each  instance  exactly  repeated 
in  the  following  sentences.     That  it  is  not  merely  its 


REPETITION  69 


content  that  is  repeated,  is  first  indicated  by  the  pre- 
cision of  repetition  and  the  identity  of  position,  an 
indication  reinforced  at  once  by  the  parallel  construc- 
tion. The  effect  is  that  of  going  along  a  certain  path 
for  a  short  distance,  then  going  back  and  from  the 
same  starting  point  following  out  several  other  simi- 
lar paths  radiating  from  that  starting  point.  In  each 
case  a  single  use  of  the  word  that  is  repeated  would 
suffice  if  we  were  to  employ  the  conjunctions  familiar 
to  classical  Latin.  (Possibly  there  was  a  time  when 
they  were  not  familiar  and  when  repetition  alone  was 
available.)  The  first  example,  for  instance,  might  be 
remoulded  as  follows:  Cupiebam  dissimulare  me  id 
moleste  ferre  et  animi  dolorem  vultu  tegere  et  taci- 
turnitate  celare.  The  infinitives  are  so  many  objects 
strung  after  the  verb.  In  the  second  example  the 
matter  is  somewhat  complicated  by  the  negative,  and 
the  conjunction  would  probably  be  aut,  another  illus- 
tration of  the  force  exercised  by  the  meaning  of  the 
word  in  determining  the  precise  nature  of  the  relation 
of  sentences.  One  more  example  is  probably  sufficient. 
Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  27.74:  Pretium  dedit;  cui 
deditf  per  quem  dedit?  unde  aut  quantum  deditf 
Such  instances  are  more  common  than  instances  of 
the  same  sort  of  repetition  exhibited  in  conjunctions. 
After  a  consideration  of  the  preceding  types  of  con- 
nection, the  first  part  of  Cicero's  first  speech  against 
Catiline  offers  some  very  interesting  study.  It  would 
be  out  of  place  here  to  do  more  than  call  attention  to 
one  or  two  points.  The  first  three  sentences  show  a 
free  adaptation  of  the  principle  of  functional  repeti- 


70  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tion.  To  be  sure,  there  is  not  exact  repetition  of  any 
element  except  the  use  of  the  future  tense  which  will 
be  seen  later  to  have  a  certain  connective  force.  But 
the  general  mould  of  the  sentences  is  the  same,  not 
merely  because  they  are  all  questions,  but  because  the 
type  of  question  is  the  same:  quo  usque,  quam  diu, 
quern  ad  finem  are  rhetorical  variations  of  the  same 
concept,  and  this  joined  with  the  further  fact  that 
Catiline  is  the  real  though  not  the  syntactical  subject 
of  each  of  the  verbs  in  the  future  tense,  and  that  he  is 
addressed  in  each,  gives  a  parallelism  to  the  three 
sentences  quite  like  that  already  studied.  There  fol- 
lows a  sentence  in  which  the  repetition  of  the  nihil 
looks  like  a  rhetorical  development  of  this  principle, 
although  but  a  single  verb  and  object  are  expressed; 
then  comes  a  repetition  of  non,  supported  by  parallel 
repetition  of  person  and  tense ;  then  another  series  of 
questions,  this  time  indirect,  in  which  the  form  of  the 
clauses,  the  repetition  of  mood,  tense,  and  person, 
their  common  dependence  on  a  single  clause,  combine 
to  indicate  the  same  parallelism.  And  so  on  through 
many  instances  in  this  oration. 

It  is  clear  that  most  of  the  instances  of  functional 
repetition  so  far  given  have  been  examples  of  the 
rhetorical  figure,  anaphora.  In  fact,  the  explanation 
of  the  figure  of  rhetoric  is  to  be  sought  in  this  funda- 
mental means  of  expressing  sentence  relation.  Palmer^ 
has  already  emphasized  the  fact  that  anaphora  has  two 
chief  functions,  one  to  analyze  a  general  truth,  the 

1 W.  H.  Palmer:  The  Use  of  Anaphora  in  the  Amplification  of  a 
General  Truth.    Thesis,  Yale  University,  1914.     See  p.  8. 


REPETITION  71 


other  to  bring  out  contrast  in  a  forcible  manner.  The 
means  by  which  these  ends  are  in  the  first  place  accom- 
plished are  to  be  found  in  the  present  study.  By  the 
repetition  of  an  element  of  one  sentence  in  the  next, 
in  an  exact  fashion  and  in  the  same  functional  use,  the 
two  sentences  are  at  once  shown  to  be  coincident.  The 
progress  of  the  thought  or  narrative  is  held  tempora- 
rily at  a  given  point.  In  this  way,  if  there  is  no  abrupt 
change  in  content  or  function  in  the  rest  of  the  indi- 
vidual sentences,  the  desired  emphasis  on  the  point 
under  discussion  is  obtained  by  holding  the  mind  to  a 
consideration  of  that  point  in  detail  before  the  thought 
proceeds  further.  On  the  other  hand,  if  there  is  abrupt 
change,  the  same  emphasis  is  given  to  the  contrast 
because  of  the  explicit  indication  of  the  coincidence 
of  the  sentences. 

As  used  in  Silver  Latin,  for  example,  this  figure  is 
highly  rhetorical.  Seneca,  Tacitus,  Pliny,  all  use  it 
deliberately  to  gain  the  desired  effect.  The  same  is 
often  true  of  earlier  Latin.  Cicero  abounds  in  the  use 
of  just  this  sort  of  rhetoric.  But  the  origin  of  this,  as 
of  all  rhetorical  figures,  was  in  a  simple  and  natural 
usage,  already  present  in  the  language.  Cato  will 
hardly  be  accused  of  rhetoric.  Yet  his  Ihi  foramen 
pedicinis  duobus  facito,  ihi  arbores  pedicino  in  lapide 
statuito  {R.R.  XVIIL4),  illustrates  the  first  type,  and 
his  Praia  inrigiva,  si  aquam  habebis,  id  potissimum 
facito:  si  aquam  nan  habebis,  sicca  quam  plurima 
facito  {R.R.  IX.l),  the  second. 

Throughout  the  discussion  of  the  examples  from 
the  speech  against  Catiline  (page  69),  it  was  tacitly 


72  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

assumed  that  the  repetition  of  verb  function  alone  is 
the  same  in  kind  as  the  other  types  of  functional  repe- 
tition. This  is  treacherous  ground  but  well  worth 
exploring,  for  here  functional  repetition  will  be  found 
stripped  of  its  externals.  It  is  treacherous  ground 
because  of  the  fact  that  in  narrative  discourse  there 
will  necessarily  be  much  repetition  apparently  of  this 
sort  which  has  no  distinct  force.    But  of  that  later. 

In  almost  all  of  the  cases  of  functional  repetition 
one  thing  has  been  noticeable.  Instead  of  being  indi- 
vidual and  independent  steps  in  some  logical  sequence 
with  a  single  point  of  contact  with  the  adjacent  steps, 
the  separate  sentences  have  very  frequently  been 
united  by  their  common  relationship  to  some  other 
sentence.  The  series  of  subordinate  clauses  were  the 
most  obvious,  but  the  same  thing  was  true  of  most  of 
the  others;  the  final  impression  given  was  that  of  a 
series  of  clauses  or  sentences  bracketed  together  and, 
as  a  compound  unit,  forming  a  single  step  in  the  pro- 
gress of  the  discourse.  With  this  fact  in  mind,  con- 
sider the  following  sentences;  they  are  from  Sallust, 
Bell.  Jug.  15.1.  Postquam  rex  finem  loquendi  fecit, 
legati  Jugurthae  largitione  magis  quam  causa  freti 
paucis  respondent:  Hiempsalem  ob  saevitiam  suam 
ah  Numidis  interfectum,  Adherhalem  .  .  .  queri,  quod 
iniuriam  facere  nequivisset.  Jugurtham  ah  senatu 
petere,  ne  se  alium  putarent,  ac  Numantiae  cognitus 
esset,  neu  verha  inimici  ante  facta  sua  ponerent. 
Deinde  utrique  curia  egrediuntur.  The  sentences  from 
Hiempsalem  through  ponerent  are  obviously  a  unit  in 
the  logical  progress  of  the  discourse  which  halts  while 


REPETITION  73 


these  parallel  items  are  recited.  And  the  fact  which 
makes  this  obvious  is  the  repetition  throughout  them 
of  a  construction  different  from  that  of  the  bulk  of 
the  discourse,  the  infinitive  mood  with  subject  accusa- 
tive. This  repetition  shows  that  their  construction  is 
the  same,  that  they  are  all  dependent  on  respondent 
and  hence  parallel  to  each  other.  This  ends  with  the 
return  to  an  indicative  in  egrediuntur. 

This  is,  of  course,  an  obvious  case,  but  there  are 
many  such.  Sallust,  Cat.  36.3 :  Praeterea  decernit,  uti 
consules  dilectum  habeant,  Antonius  cum  exercitu 
Catilinam  persequi  maturet,  Cicero  urhi  praesidio 
sit.  Here  it  is  the  repetition  of  the  subjunctive  mood 
which  shows  the  dependence  of  each  of  the  clauses  on 
the  decernit  uti.  With  their  consequent  parallelism 
with  each  other,  they  become  like  so  many  objects  of 
the  verb,  each  adding  an  item  to  the  content  of  the 
main  clause  but  not  making  an  independent  advance  in 
the  logical  progress  of  the  discourse. 

This  usage  has  a  distinct  limitation.  In  order  to 
produce  effective  parallelism,  the  repetition  of  verb 
form  cannot  be  too  long  sustained.  It  is  only  so  long 
as  the  mind  holds  the  fact  that  the  verb  forms  are  dif- 
ferent from  those  in  the  body  of  the  discourse,  that  it 
feels  them  to  be  grouped  together  by  their  similarity 
to  each  other.  That  is  why,  in  reading,  this  effect  is 
often  lost  in  a  long  passage  of  indirect  discourse. 
Tacitus  uses  a  great  amount  of  indirect  discourse  and 
so  long  as  the  passages  are  short  the  repetition  of 
verb  forms  makes  them  a  group  of  parallel  units.  But 
very  frequently  the  effect  is  entirely  lost,  for  the  pas- 


74  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

sages  are  so  long  that,  with  casual  reading,  the  infini- 
tive seems  to  become  the  regular  verb  form  of  the 
discourse. 

The  same  thing  applies  to  the  ''historical"  infinitive. 
Ordinarily,  the  infinitive  with  nominative  subject  is 
used  only  in  short  passages.  The  effect  is  then  to 
group  together  the  sentences  in  which  it  occurs  as  a 
number  of  parallel  units,  either  in  a  vivid  description 
or  in  a  narrative  in  which  the  events  are  so  crowded 
as  to  be  virtually  simultaneous.  These  units  thus 
make  a  single  whole  in  the  discourse  considered  in  the 
large.  Sallust  illustrates  this  as  well  as  anyone.  Bell. 
Jug.  96.1:  Igitur  Sulla  .  .  .  rudis  antea  et  ignarus 
belli,  s oiler tissimus  omnium  in  paucis  tempestatihus 
factus  est.  Ad  hoc  milites  henigne  appellare,  multis 
rogantihus,  aliis  per  se  ipse  dare  beneficia,  invitus 
accipere,  sed  ea  properantius  quam  aes  mutuum  red- 
dere,  ipse  ab  nullo  repetere,  magis  id  laborare,  ut  illi 
quam  plurimi  deberent,  ioca  atque  seria  cum  humillu- 
mis  agere,  in  operibus  .  .  .  multus  adesse,  neque 
interim  .  .  .  cuiusquam  boni  famam  laedere,  tantum 
modo  neque  consilio  neque  manu  priorem  alium  pati, 
plerosque  antevenire.  Quibus  rebus  et  artibus  brevi 
Mario  militibusque  carissimus'  factus.  This  is  about 
as  long  a  series  of  historical  infinitives  as  commonly 
occurs  and  the  effect  is  not  lost:  in  this  instance  the 
repetition  of  the  sollertissimus  factus  est  in  the  caris- 
simus factus  (sc.  est),  serves  to  supplement  the  func- 
tional parallelism  of  the  infinitives.  The  last  sen- 
tence summarizes  the  effect  of  the  historical  infinitives, 


REPETITION  75 


and  is  itself  made  parallel  by  repetition  to  the  sentence 
preceding  them. 

With  subjunctives  and  imperatives  there  is  no  chance 
for  the  extended  use  that  may  be  made  of  the  indica- 
tive and  infinitive  in  narrative,  so  that  repetition  of 
these  moods  is  always  effective  in  bracketing  together 
the  clauses  in  which  it  occurs.  Cicero,  In  Cat. 
IV.2.3:  Quare,  patres  conscripti,  consulite  vohis,  pro- 
spicite  patriae,  conservate  vos,  coniuges,  liberos  for- 
tunasque  vestras,  populi  Romani  nomen  salutemque 
defendite,  mihi  parcere  ac  de  me  cogitare  desinite. 
Quint.  Inst.  Orat.  1.12.6 :  Grammatico  soli  deserviamus, 
deinde  geometrae  tantum:  omittamus  interim  quod 
didicimus;  mox  transeamus  ad  musicum:  excidant 
prior  a;  et  cum  Latinis  studehimus  litteris,  non  respic- 
iamus  ad  Graecas;  etc.  C.  I.  L.  1.205:  d<.ey  e<<2> 
r<e>  ita  ius  deicito  iudicia  dato  iudicareque  iuheto 
cogito,  etc.  Cicero,  Philip.  XIV.5.14:  An  ut  ego,  qui 
Catilinam  haec  molientem  sustulerim,  everterim,  ad- 
flixerim,  ipse  existerem  repente  Catilinaf  Livy  XXIII. 
9.5 :  sed  sit  nihil  sancti,  non  fides,  non  religio,  non  pie- 
tas;  audeantur  infanda,  si  non  perniciem  nobis  cum 
scelere  ferunt. 

While  repetition  of  the  imperative  and  of  the  sub- 
junctive moods  can  regularly  be  made  effective,  and 
that  of  the  infinitive  very  frequently,  it  is  practically 
impossible  to  find  in  the  repeated  use  of  an  indicative 
any  such  suggestion  of  parallelism,  merely  because 
the  indicative  is  the  regular  mood  of  narrative.  Its 
use,  therefore,  in  a  series  of  sentences  or  clauses  does 
not  mark  them  off  from  others  adjacent. 


76  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

In  the  examples  given  of  the  imperative  and  sub- 
junctive moods  in  this  usage,  there  are  usually  supple- 
mentary means  for  reinforcing  the  definition  of  rela- 
tion. Especially  noteworthy  is  the  implicit  repetition 
of  subject,  perhaps  more  obvious  in  such  an  instance 
as  Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.51.223:  qui  sagaciter  pervesti- 
get  quid  sui  cives  .  .  .  cogitent,  sentiant,  opinentur, 
expectent.  There  may  also  be  the  repetition  of  tense, 
as  later  in  the  De  Orat.  (1.57.245) :  Tu  vero  .  .  .  si 
causam  ageres  militis,  patrem  eius,  ut  soles,  dicendo  a 
mortuis  excitasses;  statuisses  ante  oculos;  conplexus 
esset  filium  flensque  eum  centumviris  commendasset ; 
lapides  mehercule  omnes  fiere  ac  lamentari  coegisses, 
etc. 

These  two  supplementary  means  may  be  used  in 
the  same  way  with  the  indicative,  and  inasmuch  as  the 
mood  repetition  is  not,  as  a  rule,  significant  in  such 
cases,  the  repetition  of  person  and  that  of  tense  be- 
come really  the  primary  means  of  defining  clause  rela- 
tions. For  example,  such  familiar  phrases  as  quae 
teritur  absumitur  (Livy  XXXIV.7.4),  or  trucidant, 
spoliant  (Tac.  Hist.  III.25.21),  depend  largely  on  the 
repetition  of  person,  although  other  means  are  pres- 
ent and  prominent.  In  the  case  of  tense  repetition  the 
same  principle  holds  true  that  appeared  in  the  use  of 
modal  repetition:  to  be  effective  the  repetition  must 
be  that  of  a  tense  different  from  that  prevailing 
through  the  narrative.  For  example,  Tac.  Ann.  VL24. 
8:  ut  quis  egredientem  cubiculo  Drusum  pulsaverat, 
exterruerat,  etc.  Sallust,  Cat.  25.4 :  Sed  ea  saepe  ante- 
hac  fidem  prodiderat,   creditum   abiuraverat,   caedis 


REPETITION  77 


conscia  fuerat.  Seneca,  De  Vita  Beata  16.2:  nihil 
cogens,  nullo  indigebis,  liber  eris,  tutus,  indemnis; 
nihil  frustra  temptabis,  nihil  prohiberis ;  omnia  tibi 
ex  sententia  cedent,  nihil  adversum  accidet,  nihil  con- 
tra opinionem  ac  voluntatem.  Occasionally  a  series  of 
present  tenses  are  thrust  into  the  course  of  a  narra- 
tive, just  as  historical  infinitives  are  thrust  in,  and 
have  then  the  same  effect  as  these  less  distinctly  narra- 
tive tenses.    (See  Miss  Nye,  page  120.) 

In  reality,  the  use  of  mood,  tense,  and  person,  re- 
peated to  indicate  sentence  relation,  is  not  so  restricted 
as  this  discussion  would  seem  to  indicate.  The  diffi- 
culty of  analysis,  however,  makes  it  hard  to  determine 
its  force  with  exactness  and  to  illustrate  it.  If  the 
verbs  all  have  a  common  subject  expressed,  especially 
if  they  are  all  in  a  recognized  subordinate  construc- 
tion and  all  subordinate  to  the  same  clause,  there  is 
no  doubt  of  the  effect  of  the  functional  repetition  in 
marking  them  as  coordinate.  Seneca,  De  Vita  Beata 
20.5:  qui  haec  facere  proponet,  volet,  temptabit,  ad 
deos  iter  faciei.  The  three  verbs  with  qui  for  their 
subject  are  clearly  coincident  logically.  The  actual 
repetition  of  the  qui  could  not  make  this  any  clearer. 
The  following  examples  show  the  same  usage.  They 
represent  a  very  extensive  class.  Caesar,  Bell.  Gall. 
VI.24.1:  Ac  fuit  antea  tempus  cum  Germanos  Galli 
virtute  superarent,  ultro  bella  inferrent,  propter  homi- 
num  multitudinem  agrique  inopiam  trans  Rhenum 
colonias  mitterent.  Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.37.169:  ut 
amicorum  controversias  causasque  tueatur,  laboranti- 


78  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

bus  succurrat,  aegris  medeatur,  adflictos  excitet.  Livy 
XXI.10.7:  quo  lenius  agunt,  segnius  incipiunt,  eo,  etc. 

In  the  following  quotation  from  Sallust  {Cat.  37.3), 
the  subject  common  to  the  six  verbs  is  still  expressed, 
but  the  verbs  are  not  in  a  subordinate  construction: 
Nam  semper  in  civitate  quibus  opes  nullae  sunt  bonis 
invident,  malos  extollunt,  Vetera  odere,  nova  exoptant, 
odio  suarum  rerum  mutari  omnia  student,  turba  atque 
seditionibus  sine  cura  aluntur,  quoniam  egestas  facile 
habetur  sine  damno.  The  various  clauses  constitute, 
however,  a  logical  unit  just  as  much  as  those  in  the 
preceding  illustration.  This  is  shown  by  a  considera- 
tion of  the  next  sentence :  sed  urbana  plebs  ea  vera 
praeceps  erat  de  multis  causis.  The  urbana  plebs  ea 
is  contrasted  with  the  semper  in  civitate  quibus  opes 
nullae  sunt  in  the  first  sentence,  the  special  instance 
with  the  general  truth,  and  to  make  this  contrast,  not 
very  obvious  by  itself,  immediately  clear  to  the  reader, 
the  sed  is  used  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence.  The 
two  sentences  then  as  wholes  are  contrasted,  and  the 
element  which  indicates,  even  before  the  second  sen- 
tence is  reached,  that  the  first  consisted  of  several 
coincident  clauses  to  be  considered  as  one  logical  unit, 
is  the  functional  repetition,  chiefly  the  repetition  of 
person  in  the  verbs. 

The  force  of  such  functional  repetition  is  often  sup- 
plemented by  repetition  of  category.  That  is,  there  is 
some  word  in  each  sentence  which  falls  into  an  obvious 
common  category  with  a  word  in  each  of  the  other 
sentences.  Caesar,  Bell.  Gall.  VI.13.4:  Illi  rebus  divi- 
nis  intersunt,  sacrificia  publica  ac  privata  procurant, 


REPETITION  79 


religiones  inter pretantur.  The  rebus  divinis,  sacri- 
ficia,  religiones  are  all  related  through  their  common 
category.  This  is  true  also  in  the  following  instance : 
Tac.  Ann.  XV.3.7 :  Atque  interim  reliquas  legiones  pro 
ripa  Euphratis  locat,  tumultuariam  provincialium 
maniim  armat,  hostiles  ingressus  praesidiis  intercipit. 

In  this  example  from  Tacitus,  the  subject  is  ex- 
pressed only  by  means  of  the  person  of  the  verb.  A 
further  illustration  will  show  the  same:  Cicero,  In 
Verrem  1.15.43:  Itaque  a  populo  Romano  contemni- 
mur,  despicimur,  gravi  diuturnaque  iam  flag  ramus 
infamia.  The  fact  that  a  populo  limits  both  of  the 
first  two  verbs  and  in  sense  the  third,  is  also  an  aid  to 
the  quick  understanding  of  the  sentence  relation  but 
not  an  essential  part  of  it. 

A  slight  difference  is  to  be  noted  in  the  following 
example:  Pliny,  Epist.  IL3.3:  Prooemiatur  apte,  nar- 
rat  aperte,  pugnat  acriter,  colligit  fortiter,  ornat  ex- 
celse,  postremo  docet,  delectat,  adficit.  The  difference 
lies  in  the  fact  that  the  verbs  in  the  first  part  of  the 
sentence  represent  the  familiar  steps  in  the  progress 
of  an  oration.  They  give,  at  first,  the  impression  that 
there  is  logical  progression,  that  the  clauses  are  not 
coincident.  But  such  a  conclusion  is  forestalled  by 
the  summary  verbs  at  the  end,  which  abandon  the  ora- 
torical order.  This  is  a  good  instance  to  show  that 
logical  progression  is  quite  independent  of  temporal, 
and  to  make  clear  the  force  of  purely  functional  repe- 
tition to  group  the  clauses  together  into  a  logical  unit. 

These  two  points  must  be  clear  to  make  possible  an 
understanding  of  the  type  which  follows.     This  tjrpe 


80  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

may  be  represented  by  Tac.  Ann.  11.28.12 :  Statim  cor- 
ripit  reum,  adit  consules,  cognitionem  senatus  poscit. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  the  actions  repre- 
sented by  the  several  verbs  are  successive.  The  legal 
procedure  is  familiar  enough  to  make  that  obvious  to 
any  reader.  Therefore  Tacitus  did  not  need  to  mark 
it  by  conjunctions  or  adverbs.  But  there  is  also  a  dis- 
tinct impression  of  haste  about  the  passage.  This 
does  not  come  from  the  ''omission"  of  conjunctions. 
The  addition  of  these  would  not  seriously  affect  the 
impression.  It  comes  from  the  fact  that  the  func- 
tional repetition  in  the  person  of  the  verbs  inevitably 
suggests  the  coincidence  of  their  clauses.  The  extreme 
instance  of  this  double  influence  is  the  Caesarian  Veni, 
vidi,  vici. 

It  has  already  been  emphatically  stated  that  juxta- 
position alone  makes  connection  between  sentences, 
and  that  the  most  natural  relation  between  two  adja- 
cent sentences  is  that  of  temporal  succession.  And 
in  the  present  instances  familiarity  with  the  legal  or 
military  procedure  under  discussion  supplements  the 
force  of  these  facts.  But  that  is  not  to  say  that  the 
further  force  noted,  that  of  functional  repetition,  does 
not  also  have  its  influence.  It  is  the  presence  of  the 
two  forces  at  once  that  makes  these  cases  hard  to 
classify.  But  they  are  no  less  instructive  on  that 
account.  The  repetition  of  the  person  of  the  verb 
gives  the  impression  of  coincidence  while  the  other 
forces  give  the  impression  of  succession  in  time.  In 
the  following  examples,  one  element  is  sometimes  in 
the  ascendency,  sometimes  the  other. 


REPETITION  81 


Caesar,  Bell.  Gall.  VI.38.2:  Hie  diffisus  suae  atque 
omnium  saluti  inermis  ex  tabernaculo  prodit;  videt 
imminere  Jiostes  atque  in  summo  esse  rem  discrimine ; 
capit  arma  a  proximis  atque  in  porta  consistit.  Caesar, 
Bell.  Civ.  1.30.1 :  Itaque  in  praesentia  Pompei  sequendi 
rationem  omittit,  in  Hispaniam  proficisci  constituit, 
duumviris  municipiorum  omnium  imperat,  ut  naves 
conquirant,  etc.  Cicero,  In  Cat.  III.4.8:  Introduxi 
Volturcium  sine  Gallis;  fidem  puhlicam  iussu  senatus 
dedi;  hortatus  sum,  ut  ea,  quae  sciret,  sine  timore 
indicaret.  Pliny,  Epist.  IV.25.4:  Poposcit  tahellas, 
stilum  accepit,  demisit  caput,  neminem  veretur,  se 
contemnit. 

It  is  probably  not  worth  while  to  trace  further  this 
repetition  of  function.  There  is  possibly  effective 
definition  of  sentence  relation  expressed  by  repetition 
of  number,  probably  by  repetition  of  case.  But  the 
principle  should  be  clear  from  the  citations  already 
made,  and  it  is  of  greater  importance  to  study  the 
nature  of  the  relation  so  defined. 

The  fundamental  relation  between  sentences  indi- 
cated by  the  repetition  of  function  is  always  the  same : 
the  sentences  are  always  logically  coincident.  They 
may  be  parallel  with  each  other  in  thought  or  they  may 
be  the  reverse,  contrasted  with  each  other.  The  cases 
of  contrast,  sharply  marked  by  an  abrupt  change, 
either  of  meaning  or  of  function,  are  the  subject  of  a 
later  chapter.  Leaving  out  of  consideration  for  the 
time  being  those  instances  in  which  the  specific  rela- 
tion is  one  of  contrast,  there  is  no  such  variety  of  rela- 


82  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tion  between  sentence  and  sentence  as  was  expressed 
by  repetition  of  content.  The  variations  in  the  type  do 
not  represent  variations  in  the  precise  definition  of 
relation.  The  repetition  of  function  is  a  much  nar- 
rower usage  than  repetition  of  content.  In  every 
instance  the  second  sentence  expresses  some  idea 
parallel  to  that  expressed  in  the  first.  The  two  ideas 
are  not  only  coincident  but  equivalent  steps  in  the 
logical  development  of  the  writer's  thought. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  a  very  narrow 
range  of  conjunctions  available  for  use  with  such  repe- 
tition. As  a  matter  of  fact,  et  and  -que  are  the  only 
ones,  with  aut  for  negative  sentences.  The  use  of 
these  can  be  very  briefly  illustrated. 

In  the  Tusculan  Disputations,  III.34.82,  the  repeti- 
tion of  si  serves  alone  to  mark  the  relation  between 
clauses ;  Si  quis  error  alicunde  extitit,  si  paupertas 
momordit,  si  ignominia  pupugit,  si  quid  tenehrarum 
ohfudit  exsilium,  etc.  The  parallelism  of  clauses  is 
obvious.  In  V.1.2,  Cicero  employs  an  et  to  mark  the 
relation  more  conspicuously:  Quodsi  ah  iis  inventa  et 
perfecta  virtus  est,  et  si  praesidii  ad  beate  vivendum 
in  virtute  satis  est,  etc.  And  again,  in  IV.35.76,  the 
si  is  no  longer  repeated;  the  functional  repetition  of 
the  verb  forms  supplemented  by  the  use  of  et  ex- 
presses the  relation:  Etenim  si  naturalis  amor  esset, 
et  amarent  omnes,  et  semper  amarent,  et  idem  amarent, 
etc.  The  meaning  is  essentially  the  same  in  all  three 
sentences,  the  sentence  relation  identical. 

The  same  variation  may  be  seen  in  the  following 
examples.     Tac.  Ann.  II.33.3:  decretumque  ne  vasa 


REPETITION  83 


auro  solido  ministrandis  cibis  fierent,  ne  vestis  serica 
viros  foedaret.  Cato,  R.R.  XXXII.2 :  caveto  ne  vitem 
praecipites  et  ne  nimium  praestringas.  Nepos,  Alcih. 
5.1 :  pertimuerunt  ne  caritate  patriae  ductus  aliquando 
ah  ipsis  descisceret  et  cum  suis  in  gratiam  rediret. 
Cato  makes  his  sentence  relation  no  clearer  when  he 
uses  et  in  addition  to  repetition  in  R.R.  XXV.l :  Quom 
vinum  coctum  erit  et  quom  legetur,  than  when  he  uses 
the  repetition  alone  in  II.l :  Pater  familias  ubi  ad  vil- 
lam  venit,  ubi  larem  familiarem  salutavit.  The  et 
adds  nothing  to  our  understanding  of  Sallust,  Bell. 
Jug.  85.25:  scilicet  quia  imagines  non  habeo  et  quia 
mihi  nova  nobilitas  est.  For  variety's  sake,  a  writer 
sometimes  uses  both  methods  in  one  sentence.  E.g., 
Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.  40.1:  Interim  Romae  C.  Manlius 
Limetanus  tribunus  plebis  rogationem  ad  populum 
promulgat,  uti  quaereretur  in  eos,  quorum  consilio 
Jugurtha  senati  decreta  neglegisset,  quique  ab  eo  in 
legationibus  aut  imperiis  pecunias  accepissent,  qui 
elephantos  quique  perfugas  tradidissent,  item  qui  de 
pace  aut  bello  cum  hostibus  pactiones  fecissent.  The 
use  of  item  in  this  last  clause  is  altogether  identical 
with  the  use  of  a  conjunction,  and  furnishes  a  good 
example  of  the  method  by  which  the  majority  of  con- 
junctions first  came  into  use,  as  adverbs  to  supplement 
the  more  fundamental  means  of  expressing  relation. 
The  conjunction  is  used  as  a  supplementary  sign  of 
relation  with  the  other  types  of  functional  repetition, 
too.  For  example,  Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.8.30:  prae- 
cipue  semper  floruit  semperque  dominata  est.  The 
repetition  of  the  semper  is  quite  adequate  to  express 


84  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

the  sentence  relation;  so  is  the  repetition  of  velim  and 
of  the  second  person  present  subjunctive  following  it, 
in  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  1.7.1.  The  et  is  really  an  unneces- 
sary addition.  Tu  velim  ea,  quae  nobis  emisse  et 
parasse  scrihis,  des  operant  ut  quam  primum  habea- 
mus  et  velim  cogites  .  .  .  quem  ad  modum  bibliothecam 
nobis  conficere  possis. 

In  the  following  examples  the  conjunction  is  added 
to  reinforce  the  repetition,  which  is  confined  to  the 
verb  form.  Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  2.10:  orat  atque  ob- 
secrat.  Livy  XXXV.7.8:  fudit  fugavitque.  There  is 
no  essential  difference  between  these  and  the  phrases 
already  cited  from  Livy  and  Tacitus:  quae  teritur 
absumitur,  and  trucidant  spoliant;  or  the  phrases  so 
common  in  the  inscriptions,  dedit  adsignavit,  or  habue- 
runt  possiderunt.  (Cf.  C.  L  L.  1.200.3;  1.204,  line  16 
et  passim.)  In  the  following  there  is  just  as  little 
actual  need  of  the  conjunction:  Cicero,  De  Orat. 
1.55.235:  Et  enim  sine  controversia  et  magna  est  et 
late  patet  et  ad  multos  pertinet  et  summo  in  honore 
semper  fuit  et  clarissimi  cives  ei  studio  etiam  hodie 
praesunt.  Caesar,  Bell.  Gall.  1.3.4:  cuius  pater  reg- 
num  in  Sequanis  multos  annos  obtinuerat  et  ab  senatu 
populi  Romani  amicus  appelatus  erat.  Cicero,  De 
Orat.  1.21.95:  si  quis  pari  fuerit  ingenio  pluraque 
quam  hie  et  audierit  et  lectitarit  et  scripserit,  etc. 

The  principle  outlined  above,  in  the  discussion  of 
repetition  of  content,  that  the  conjunctions  are  very 
often  merely  supplementary  as  a  means  of  expressing 
sentence  relation,  is  borne  out  by  these  instances  of 
repetition  of  function.     The  conjunctions  found  in 


REPETITION  85 


such  instances  are  those  originating  from  adverbs 
indicating  something  like  **in  addition  to."  The  repe- 
tition of  function  unaided  shows  that  the  two  sen- 
tences are  parallel  and  coincident.  The  conjunction 
does  no  more  than  supplement  this  indication. 


CHAPTER  IV 
RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS 

After  so  long  a  study  of  repetition  and  its  use  to 
express  certain  relations  between  adjacent  sentences, 
it  is  necessary  to  remind  ourselves  that  repetition 
does  not  make  relation,  does  not  relate  the  sentences. 
The  sentences,  by  virtue  of  the  psychological  processes 
which  produced  them,  were  of  necessity  related  before 
ever  they  were  put  on  paper  or  even  analyzed  into 
words.  Repetition  is  the  means  employed  to  define 
to  the  reader  the  particular  nature  of  the  relation. 
This  fundamental  fact,  that  the  sentences  are  in  abso- 
lutely every  instance  related,  is  the  explanation  of  the 
further  fact  that  not  alone  repetition  of  an  element 
of  meaning  or  function,  but  also  change  of  meaning  or 
function  may  indicate  the  type  of  sentence  relation. 
The  unconscious  problem  in  the  reader's  mind  is 
always  ''what  is  the  relation,"  not  ''is  there  a  rela- 
tion." The  use  of  repetition  has  been  found  to  sug- 
gest certain  sorts  of  relation,  often  more  precisely 
defined  by  further  means;  the  use  of  change  will  be 
found  to  suggest  others. 

But  a  third  element  already  met  with  in  the  study 
of  repetition  and  even  more  prevalent  throughout  the 
instances  of  change,  can  be  more  conveniently  studied 
next,  because  of  the  necessity  of  understanding  it  in 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  87 

connection  with  the  element  of  semantic  and  func- 
tional change.  For  want  of  a  better  name,  I  shall 
continue  to  call  it  the  element  of  incompleteness.^  It 
has  a  wide  range  from  the  very  simplest  types  to  the 
most  rhetorical  adaptations. 

The  principle  is  this:  any  word  or  phrase  either 
essentially  empty  of  meaning  when  taken  by  itself, 
or  incomplete  in  meaning  in  its  particular  setting, 
forces  the  hearer  or  reader  to  look  outside  the  word 
or  phrase  to  find  reason  for  its  employment.  Within 
the  sentence,  this  is  illustrated  by  the  use  of  the  inflec- 
tional endings.  These  endings  do  not  add  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  itself  but  give  to  it  an  element  of 
relativity :  they  exist  to  show  the  relation  of  the  word 
to  other  words  and  therefore  render  it  incomplete 
until  the  mind  grasps  those  other  words.  Between 
sentences,  the  same  principle  holds  true.  It  is  opera- 
tive in  the  use  of  such  empty  words  as  conjunctions 
or  of  demonstratives,  which  have  meaning  only  by 
borrowing,  or  of  words  or  phrases  whose  meaning  is 
essentially  incomplete  except  by  reference  to  some- 
thing outside  their  own  sentence.  Syntactically,  the 
sentences  which  exhibit  this  type  of  connection  may  be 
complete,  but  to  make  their  sense  complete,  to  give 
them  logical  finish,  they  need  the  help  of  something 
from  without. 

Illustration  will  make  this  clear.  Assume  a  clause 
beginning  with  et:  et  triumphavit  Caesar.  This  is 
syntactically  a  complete  clause,  an  idea  expressed  in 

1  Cf .  Sentence  Connection  in  Tacitus,  p.   112;   Miss  Nye:    Sentence 
Connection,  p.  1. 


88  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

words.  But  there  is  left  in  the  mind  after  reading  it 
a  feeling  of  incompleteness,  due  not  alone  to  the  fact 
that  the  circumstances  of  the  triumph  are  unknown, 
that  the  title  of  Caesar  is  ambiguous.  The  source  of 
vagueness  is  to  be  found  in  et.  Et  apparently  has  no 
meaning  whatever;  or  if  it  has,  that  meaning  is  due 
to  something  outside  the  clause.  Probably  another 
clause  once  preceded  this  one  and  then  the  et  had  some 
force.  Its  very  presence  at  the  beginning  of  the  clause 
forces  the  mind  to  relate  the  clause  to  some  other  in 
order  to  give  meaning  to  et. 

The  incompleteness  in  the  meaning  of  et  can  be 
understood  by  reference  to  its  origin.  The  conjunc- 
tion was  first  an  adverb  with  the  general  sense  of 
''furthermore"  or  '*in  addition."  The  adverb  itself 
was  apparently  developed  to  mark  a  sentence  relation 
not  sufficiently  obvious  without  it.  And  because  of 
the  fact  that  it  was  simply  a  marker,  used  not  to 
express  any  element  of  thought  within  the  sentence, 
but  simply  its  relation  to  another  sentence,  its  mean- 
ing was  naturally  incomplete  without  reference  to  that 
other  sentence.  It  was  probably  used  at  first  simply 
with  a  sentence  subsequent  logically  to  the  one  preced- 
ing it,  to  mark  the  thought  progression.  That  other 
means  of  indicating  the  relation,  aside  from  mere 
juxtaposition,  might  be  present,  has  been  seen  in  the 
chapter  on  repetition.  But  the  et,  once  familiar, 
became  the  handiest  of  all  means. 

Furthermore,  this  use  in  the  second  clause  seems  to 
have  been  always  the  fundamental  one  with  et.  What- 
ever force  other  means  may  give  to  a  clause,  the  et, 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  89 

suggesting  simple  succession,  has  no  part  in  thera. 
Ehetoric  may,  for  effect,  use  an  et  with  a  clause  whose 
abrupt  change  from  the  preceding  clause  indicates 
contrast.  But  this  is  simply  to  heighten  the  effect  of 
the  contrast  by  the  unexpectedness  of  it  after  et.  The 
correlative  use  seems  to  have  been  a  later  develop- 
ment, the  result  of  the  influence  of  functional  repeti- 
tion, but  such  an  empty  word  lent  itself  readily  to  the 
usage.  For,  having  no  meaning  by  itself,  if  nothing 
had  preceded  its  clause  to  complete  its  meaning,  it 
must  needs  hold  the  mind  in  suspense  until  its  incom- 
pleteness was  somehow  satisfied.  There  are  adverbs 
in  actual  use  which  show  the  same  force  that  lay  in 
the  adverb  from  which  et  developed.  Item,  etiam, 
rursus,  are  quite  analogous. 

Similar  to  et  in  origin  and  force  are  sed,  at,  autem, 
and  also  enim  and  nam.  The  first  group  originate  in 
adverbs  meaning  in  general  ''apart,"  ''away  from." 
Such  ideas  are  as  incomplete  as  the  notion  of  "  in  addi- 
tion to, ' '  in  the  adverbial  ancestor  of  et.  But  the  mean- 
ing of  the  adverbs  in  this  group  fitted  them  to  mark  a 
different  type  of  relation,  and,  because  of  their  mean- 
ing, they  became  attached  to  contrasted  sentences  in 
exactly  the  same  way  that  et  became  attached  to  log- 
ically subsequent  sentences.  The  origin  of  enim  and 
nam  is  not  so  certain,  but,  whatever  the  adverb  from 
which  they  came,  it  obviously  had  the  same  incom- 
pleteness and  a  meaning  which  fitted  it  to  become  the 
more  or  less  mechanical  sign  of  an  explanatory  sen- 
tence. At  ego  quasi  ex  aliqua  peregrina  delicataque 
merce  lusus  meos  tibi  prodo.     Pliny,  Epist.  IV.14.1. 


90  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

At  performs  in  this  sentence  exactly  the  kind  of  func- 
tion that  et  performed  in  the  sentence  et  triumphavit 
Caesar,  a  function  that  is  not  evident  until  the  sen- 
tence is  considered  in  its  context.  As  the  statement 
stands  without  context,  at  is  an  appendage,  meaning 
almost  nothing  except  by  way  of  suggestion.  So  far 
as  the  clause  itself  is  concerned  et  or  enim  or  ergo 
might  have  been  the  opening  word  without  affecting 
its  meaning.  But  the  preceding  sentence  considered 
with  the  present  one  makes  clear  the  use  of  at.  Tu 
fortasse  orationem,  ut  soles,  et  flagites  et  expectas. 
As  will  appear  in  the  following  chapter,  the  abrupt 
semantic  change  between  tu  and  ego  (made  obvious  by 
position)  and  between  orationem  and  lusus,  indicate 
contrast,  anticipated  by  fortasse  in  the  first  sentence. 
The  contrast  is  indicated  without  at,  which  serves  only 
to  draw  attention  to  it. 

In  the  following  examples,  the  same  principle  is 
illustrated.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  II.1.5 :  ille  autem  non  sim- 
ulat,  sed  plane  tribunus  pi.  fieri  cupit.  Caesar,  Bell. 
Civ.  1.51.6.  Hoc  pugnae  tempus  magnum  attulit  nos- 
tris  ad  salutem  momentum;  nacti  enim  spatium  se  in 
loca  superiora  receperunt.  The  essential  mark  of 
relation  between  these  clauses  is  in  the  first  and  is  dis- 
cussed in  the  chapter  on  Anticipatory  Incompleteness 
(pp.  165  ff.).  It  lies  in  the  deliberately  vague  state- 
ment implying  an  explanation  to  follow.  In  this 
instance  the  vagueness  is  not  striking  and  the  enim 
is  therefore  used  to  make  sure  that  the  second  sentence 
is  understood  as  explanatory.  Cicero,  Topica  24.91: 
Quarum  fines  ipsi  declarant  quihus  utendum  locis  sit. 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  91 

Nam  iudicii  finis  est  ius,  ex  quo  etiam  nomen.  The 
primary  signs  of  relation  are  two,  anticipatory  vague- 
ness in  the  first  sentence  and  semantic  repetition  in 
the  second,  marking  that  sentence  as  subsequent  log- 
ically to  the  first.  Nam  supplements  the  force  of  the 
vagueness  in  defining  the  explanatory  nature  of  the 
second  sentence. 

It  is  not  intended  at  present  to  show  the  sentence 
relation  brought  out  by  the  individual  conjunctions, 
but  to  indicate  that  in  themselves  they  are  incomplete 
in  meaning  and  that,  therefore,  placed  at  the  begin- 
ning of  a  clause  they  inevitably  direct  the  attention 
of  the  reader  or  hearer  to  a  preceding  sentence.  They 
are  themselves  detached  mechanical  indicators  of  rela- 
tion, owing  their  power  to  indicate  relation  to  their 
inherent  incompleteness,  their  power  of  definition  to 
their  original  meaning  as  adverbs.  In  Chapter  VI  (pp. 
155  ff.)  will  be  found  similar  mechanical  indicators 
whose  place  is  in  the  first  sentence  and  whose  func- 
tion is  anticipatory  rather  than  retrospective.  Other 
conjunctions  used  in  the  second  sentence  will  be  dis- 
cussed presently. 

The  next  type  of  incompleteness  is  that  found  in 
demonstratives  and  relatives.  This  was  touched  on  in 
Chapter  III  (pp.  31  if.)  where,  however,  the  element 
of  repetition  was  primarily  under  discussion.  That 
element  was  almost  always  prominent  in  these  pro- 
nouns, until  they  became  the  favourite  means  employed 
to  repeat  the  content  of  some  preceding  substantive 
without  direct  repetition  of  the  actual  word.  But 
their  ability  to  do  this  lies  in  their  own  emptiness  of 


92  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

meaning.  The  fact  that  they  can  repeat  the  most 
widely  different  sorts  of  content,  shows  that  they  are 
of  themselves  empty  words.  Haec  statim  dixit,  or  Quae 
vehementer  dixit,  are  syntactically  complete  sentences. 
Logically,  both  of  them  are  incomplete.  It  requires 
some  reference  to  what  lies  outside  the  sentences  them- 
selves to  make  their  meaning  complete,  just  as  it  re- 
quired some  reference  to  what  lay  outside  the  et  clause 
to  make  its  meaning  complete.  Beyond  this  fact,  how- 
ever, there  is  nothing  in  common  between  the  demon- 
strative and  the  conjunction.  The  latter  referred  back 
to  the  preceding  clause,  but  did  not  bring  it  or  any 
part  of  it  definitely  before  the  mind  as  a  part  of  its 
own  clause.  This  the  demonstrative  and  the  relative 
always  do:  whenever  they  refer  the  mind  to  what 
has  preceded,  they  always  make  all  or  part  of  that 
preceding  thought  a  distinct  and  real  part  of  their 
own  clause.  That  there  is  a  difference  between  the 
relative  and  the  demonstrative  in  the  range  of  their 
suggestive  incompleteness,  has  been  indicated  in  the 
last  chapter  (page  33).  But  this  is  chiefly  of  impor- 
tance when  their  force  is  anticipatory.  For  the 
essence  of  the  incompleteness  of  the  relative  and  the 
demonstrative  lies  in  their  deictic  character.  In  their 
retrospective  uses  they  are  alike  in  this  respect.  But 
if  nothing  precedes  to  give  content  to  their  incom- 
pleteness, they  are  quite  different.  The  relative,  in 
developing  its  subordinating  force,  has  lost  to  a  large 
extent  its  general  deictic  character  and  can  look  for- 
ward only  to  a  demonstrative,  expressed  or  implied. 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  93 

The  demonstrative  merely  points.  It  has  no  further 
connotation. 

In  so  far  as  this  demonstrative  type  of  incomplete- 
ness is  retrospective,  its  defining  force  is  always  that 
of  repetition  of  content.  The  element  of  incompleteness 
indicates  the  existence  of  relation  without  defining  it. 
The  reason  for  emphasizing  this  element  is  that  it  lies 
behind  the  demonstrative  even  when  retrospection  is 
impossible,  and  the  force  of  the  demonstrative  then 
becomes  anticipatory.  For  the  present,  however,  the 
former  phase  only  is  under  discussion.^  It  is  the  same 
element  that  explains  the  connective  force  of  the  de- 
monstrative adverbs :  hie,  hinc,  hue,  inde,  turn,  ita,  tarn, 
and  the  like.  It  is  in  the  same  way  behind  the  demon- 
strative adjectives  like  talis,  only  with  them  the  ele- 
ment of  repetition  is  rather  more  evident.  It  is  be- 
hind the  conjunctions  itaque,  quare,  and  tamen.  And, 
finally,  it  is  the  key  to  an  understanding  of  a  great 
many  of  the  subordinating  conjunctions.  These  last 
points  need  a  little  further  explanation. 

The  non-subordinating  conjunctions  already  dis- 
cussed are  primarily  adverbs  modifying  the  whole 
clause  in  which  they  stand  and  developing  each  from 
an  independent  meaning  of  its  own.  Those  that  re- 
main to  be  discussed  are,  for  the  most  part,  developed 
from  the  demonstrative  and  relative  pronouns  and 
have  therefore  the  same  inherent  incompleteness  as 
the  pronouns,  resulting  in  a  deictic  function.    Itaque, 

1  Examples  of  the  demonstrative  usage  are  omitted  because  of  the 
illustrations  given  in  Chapter  III.  Many  examples  may  be  found  in 
Sentence  Connection  in  Tacitus,  pp.  57  ff. 


94  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

ideo  and  inde  as  well  as  quo  and  unde,  quapropter  and 
quare  all  point  back  to  the  preceding  clause  and  effect 
a  repetition  of  content,  a  summary  repetition  of  the 
content  of  the  whole  preceding  clause.  The  element 
of  incompleteness  indicates  this  retrospective  relation, 
the  element  of  repetition  serves  to  define  it.  Unlike 
the  conjunctions  previously  discussed  those  in  the 
present  category,  by  virtue  of  their  function  of  repeat- 
ing the  content  of  the  previous  clause,  form  an  integral 
part  of  their  own  clause,  instead  of  merely  modifying 
its  whole  tone.  Those  previously  discussed  could  be 
omitted  without  destroying  the  clause  structure;  the 
present  group  consists  of  conjunctions  which  cannot 
be  thus  omitted  without  destroying  the  sense  of  the 
clauses  in  which  they  stand. 

Quod  also,  in  its  use  so  common  in  Seneca  and  else- 
where in  the  phrase  quod  si,  has  the  force  of  summary 
repetition,  gathering  into  an  accusative  of  specifica- 
tion the  general  idea  of  what  has  preceded.  Such  is 
its  use,  for  example,  in  Horace,  Odes  LI:  quod  si  me 
lyricis,  vatihus  inseres  sublimi  feriam  sidera  vertice. 
But  quod  had  also  another  use  in  which  it  was  more 
closely  bound  to  the  verb:  Fecisti  mihi  pergratum, 
quod  Serapionis  librum  ad  me  misisti.  (Cicero,  Ad 
Att.  II.4.1.)  Obviously  this  use  is  simply  a  further 
development  of  the  same  relative  usage.  Examples 
from  Plautus  make  this  even  more  clear:  e.g.,  Capt. 
586:  Filium  tuom  quod  redimere  se  ait,  id  ne  utiquam 
mihi  placet.  Quam  and  cum  (quom)  have  the  same 
original  force  and  have  their  demonstrative  counter- 
parts in  tarn  and  turn.     Ut  apparently  has  the  same 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  95 

underlying  relative  element  and  is  similarly  used  both 
independently  as  a  conjunction  and  in  correlation  with 
its  demonstrative  counterpart,  ita.  Whether  the  grad- 
ual development  of  subordinating  force  took  place  in 
each  correlative  pair  independently  or  whether  the 
adaptability  to  this  twofold  usage  was  already  inher- 
ent in  the  relative  from  which  each  came  is  quite  im- 
material to  the  present  discussion.  "With  respect  to 
the  relative  pronoun  the  case  is  clear.  Originally  in 
the  usage  of  an  indefinite  pronoun  and  a  demonstra- 
tive in  adjacent  clauses,  the  demonstrative  repeated 
the  content  of  the  indefinite  and  this  repetition  indi- 
cated the  logical  subsequence  of  the  clause  in  which  it 
occurred.  The  other  clauses  came  to  be  looked  upon 
as  not  only  antecedent  but  subordinate  and  the  rela- 
tive became  differentiated  from  the  indefinite  as  a 
subordinating  pronoun  in  the  pair,  is  .  .  .  qui.  In  the 
case  of  the  other  relative  words  the  exact  point  at 
which  their  independent  existence  began  is  not  so 
clear  but  the  principle  is  the  same  fundamentally. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  conjunction  si  almost  surely 
attained  its  adverbial  force  as  a  form  of  the  demon- 
strative pronoun.  It  was  used  in  correlative  clauses 
to  which  it  thus  imparted  the  force  of  functional  repe- 
tition. But  as  one  sentence  came  to  be  looked  upon 
as  the  principal  one  and  the  other  as  the  conditioning 
one,  the  subordinating  use  became  established.  Clearly 
the  line  between  coordinate  and  subordinate  was  not 
always  sharply  drawn. 

Obviously  not  all  conjunctions  are  alike  in  their  ori- 
gin ;  it  is  not  strange  therefore  to  find  that  they  differ 


96  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

in  the  origin  of  their  element  of  incompleteness.  But 
in  their  developed  use  in  Latin  this  can  be  truly  said 
of  the  conjunctions  in  general :  they  are  empty  words 
by  themselves;  and  whatever  the  specific  force  which 
they  exercise  in  expressing  relation,  they  give  mean- 
ing only  as  they  are  considered  with  reference  to  some 
clause  outside  their  own.  They  are  like  the  preposi- 
tions within  the  sentence.  For  prepositions  have  only 
an  indeterminate  content.  Absolutely  alone  they  mean 
almost  nothing;  taken  merely  with  the  word  which 
they  *' govern, "  they  gain  some  precision  but  very  little. 
They  must  always  be  considered  with  reference  to 
other  words  in  the  sentence.  So  it  is  with  the  con- 
junctions, except  that  clauses  and  sentences  take  the 
place  of  words.  And,  furthermore,  it  will  prove  true 
as  already  suggested,  that  conjunctions,  like  prepo- 
sitions, are  not  a  primary  means  of  expressing  rela- 
tion. They  were  in  all  probability  first  used  as  a  sup- 
plementary means  and  only  when  they  had  become 
familiar  in  this  way,  and  had  attained  fairly  perma- 
nent fields  of  usage,  did  they  become  regular  carriers 
for  all  sorts  of  connections.  The  analogy  with  prepo- 
sitions strengthens  this  theory. 

Conjunctions  developed  a  large  field  of  their  own, 
so  large  a  field  that  it  has  often  been  looked  on  as  the 
whole  field  of  sentence  connection.  Their  real  func- 
tion cannot  be  altogether  clear  until  we  have  consid- 
ered all  types  of  connectives.  At  present  it  is  simply 
the  principle  of  incompleteness  behind  them  all  that 
is  under  consideration.  How  this  came  to  be  present 
has  been  shown  in  a  few  cases  and  will  be  shown  in  the 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  97 

others  from  time  to  time.  But  that  it  is  present  in  all 
of  the  conjunctions  is  probably  obvious.  None  of  the 
conjunctions  has  real  meaning  when  consideration  is 
given  solely  to  the  clause  in  which  it  stands. 

Even  more  clearly  than  in  the  demonstrative  usage, 
it  is  repetition  to  which  the  element  of  incompleteness 
points  in  the  next  type,  that  of  comparatives.  When 
Tacitus  writes  {Ann.  III.43.1) :  Apud  Aeduos  maior 
moles  exorta,  the  maior  is  logically  incomplete  without 
reference  to  the  preceding  description  of  revolt  in  two 
other  German  tribes.  Moles  repeats  the  general  con- 
tent of  what  has  gone  before,  but  this  fact  does  not 
prevent  the  comparative  maior  from  having  its  own 
connective  force  due  to  its  incompleteness.  The  same 
is  true  very  generally  in  the  use  of  comparatives: 
from  their  adjectival  nature  they  are  almost  neces- 
sarily accompanied  by  actual  or  implicit  repetition. 
One  instance  of  implicit  repetition  may  be  cited  as 
typical.  Tac.  Ann.  XIII.39.5:  et  Corhulo,  .  .  .  excin- 
dere  parat  castella,  sibique  quod  validissimum  in  ea 
praefectura,  cognomento  Volandum,  sumit;  minora 
Cornelio  Flacco  legato  et  Insteio  Capitoni  castrorum 
praefecto  mandat.  Undoubtedly  castella  is  implied 
with  minora  and  undoubtedly  this  is  implicit  repeti- 
tion of  the  clearest  sort.  But  it  is  not  the  omission  of 
castella  which  makes  minora  incomplete  and  this  point 
is  worth  noting  carefully.  The  implication  of  castella 
with  minora  is  an  instance  of  relation  expressed  by 
repetition:  it  would  have  been  virtually  the  same  no 
matter  what  particular  method  of  expressing  a  part 
of  the  content  of  castella  was  employed.    It  is  totally 


98  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

independent  of  the  incompleteness  of  minora,  which  is 
a  relativity  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  meaning  of 
a  comparative.  The  incompleteness  of  the  compara- 
tive points  out  the  repetition,  but  it  is  not  the  same 
thing  as  the  repetition  any  more  than  the  incomplete- 
ness of  the  demonstrative  and  the  repetition  which  it 
indicates  are  one  and  the  same  thing. 

The  force  of  comparatives  is  not  confined  to  adjec- 
tives in  the  comparative  degree.  Some  adjectives  are 
essentially  comparative  in  their  meaning.  Alius,  alter, 
ceterus,  reliquus,  par,  and  similis  are  such  by  nature. 
When  used  retrospectively  they  all  imply  repetition 
just  as  do  the  ordinary  adjectives  used  in  the  same 
way,  but  the  first  four  have  a  very  strong  element  of 
incompleteness  which  becomes  of  importance  in  their 
anticipatory  use.  In  the  same  category,  of  course,  fall 
the  corresponding  adverbs,  such  as  cetera,  alias,  pari- 
ter,  and  also  contra.  And  finally,  the  conjunction 
ceterum  is  dependent  on  the  same  element  for  its 
force. 

Certain  nouns  belong  to  the  category  of  words  whose 
meaning  is  inherently  relative  or  incomplete  although 
it  is  not  so  easy  to  analyze  their  force  as  it  is  that 
of  demonstratives  and  comparatives.  They  are  such 
nouns  as  causa  which  by  their  meaning  cannot  be 
thought  of  without  reference  to  another  concept  out- 
side of  themselves.  There  can  be,  for  the  ordinary 
mind,  no  conception  of  cause  apart  from  something 
caused.  Such  words  have  only  an  indeterminate  con- 
tent, so  that,  while  they  are  not  quite  so  empty  of  mean- 
ing as  conjunctions  are,  they  still  depend  for  any  satis- 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  99 

factory  meaning  on  some  word  outside  themselves.  If 
the  complementary  concept  is  expressed  in  the  sen- 
tence, as  for  example  in  Tac.  Hist.  II.54.5,  Causa  fin- 
gendi  fuit  ut,  etc.,  the  connection  is  regularly  expressed 
by  repetition  of  content.  But  if  there  is  no  summary 
repetition,  as  in  this  illustration,  or  specific  repeti- 
tion, such  as  frequently  follows  causa,  the  incomplete- 
ness of  the  word,  unsatisfied  in  its  own  clause,  directs 
the  mind  to  the  one  preceding  and,  like  the  compara- 
tives, implies  the  repetition  which  is  not  specifically 
expressed.  It  was  probably  as  much  the  presence  of 
this  element  of  incompleteness  as  the  force  of  the 
ablative  case  which  singled  out  causa  to  develop  a 
prepositional  usage. 

The  number  of  nouns  like  causa  is  more  numerous 
than  at  first  appears.  Tac.  Ann.  IV.1.3,  shows  initium 
used  together  with  causa:  Cum  repente  turbare  for- 
tuna  coepit,  saevire  ipse  aut  saevientihus  vires  prae- 
here.  Initium  et  causa  penes  Aelium  Seianum.  Argu- 
mentum,  testis,  testimonium,  very  often  show  the  same 
incompleteness  though,  like  all  words  of  this  group, 
they  have  a  perfectly  concrete  and  self-sufficient  use 
beside.  Pliny,  Epist.  IV.7.3:  recta  ingenia  debilitat 
verecundia,  perversa  confirmat  audacia.  Exemplo  est 
Regulus.  Compare  an  instance  in  which  the  usage 
is  supplemented  by  a  conjunction  but  with  the  same 
force:  et  testimonio  sunt  clarissimi  poetae.  (Quint. 
hist.  Orat.  I.IO.IO.)  In  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Com.  4.11, 
the  repetition  is  made  explicit:  Ei  rei  ipsa  verba  for- 
mulae testimonio  sunt,  but  the  relation  is  just  as 
clearly  indicated  by  the  incompleteness  in  the  follow- 


100  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

ing  instances.  Cicero,  Brutus  6.25:  Quare  quinque 
artium  concursus  maxumarum  quantam  vim  quantam- 
que  difficult  at  em  habeat  existimari  potest.  Testis  est 
Graecia,  quae,  etc.  Tac.  Hist,  y.2.3:  ludaeos  Greta 
insula  profugos  novissima  Lihyae  insedisse  memorant, 
qua  tempestate  Saturnus  vi  lovis  pulsus  cesserit  reg- 
nis.  Argumentum  e  nomine  petitur.  The  list  of  words 
might  be  extended  but  extension  would  show  no  change 
in  the  principle. 

The  verbs  which,  by  their  meaning,  come  under  this 
category  of  the  incomplete  are  few.  Such  a  verb  as 
malo  undoubtedly  contains  the  same  element  of  incom- 
pleteness as  the  comparative  adjectives  and  adverbs. 
But  that  is  because  of  the  adverb  compounded  with 
volo  in  the  formation  of  malo.  The  verb,  therefore, 
belongs  with  the  comparative  adverbs  in  the  present 
study.  Again,  respondeo  and  similar  verbs  com- 
pounded with  re-,  have  a  distinct  element  of  incom- 
pleteness imparted  to  them  by  the  prefix.  These  verbs 
do  not  merely  repeat  by  implication  an  element  from 
the  preceding  sentence;  they  are  rather  like  the  ad- 
verbs item  and  rursus:  their  reference  is  to  the  whole 
idea  preceding  and  does  not  select  any  part  of  it  to  be 
used  as  the  starting  point  for  a  new  idea.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  tendency  is  strong  to  make  the  repeti- 
tion, such  as  there  is,  less  vague.  Often  it  becomes 
quite  explicit.  For  example,  Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio 
18.57:  Quaesivit  a  te  .  .  .  Quinctius,  quo  die  vadimo- 
nium  istuc  factum  esse  dicer es.  Respondisti  statim: 
Nonis  Febr.  It  is  natural  to  assume  something  like  ei 
from  the  Quinctius  of  the  first  sentence.    Very  often 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS     '     101' '  "' 

there  is  actual  repetition  used  in  the  rest  of  the  sec- 
ond sentence.  Such  is  the  case  in  Seneca,  De  Const. 
Sap.  18.5:  Antistheni  mater  harhara  et  Thraessa  obi- 
ciebatur;  respondit  et  deorum  matrem  Idaeam  esse. 
But  answering  implies  something  said  or  asked  and 
the  incompleteness  points  to  the  repetition  even 
though  it  can  hardly  be  conceived  of  without  it. 

More  intimately  involved  with  direct  repetition  is 
the  incompleteness  of  transitive  verbs  used  without 
an  object.  These  have  been  discussed  as  examples  of 
implied  repetition  and  such  they  are,  but  the  inherent 
incompleteness  in  their  use  should  also  be  noted.  Bel- 
lum  secutum  est;  by  its  very  meaning  sequor  must 
have  an  object,  for  following  is  inconceivable  apart 
from  the  thing  followed.  Wlien  Tacitus  begins  a  para- 
graph {Ann.  III.52)  with  the  statement,  C.  Sulpicius 
D.  Haterius  consules  sequuntur,  the  object  of  the 
sequuntur  is  necessarily  assumed  from  the  preceding 
paragraph.  It  is  a  case  of  implicit  summary  repeti- 
tion. However,  the  incompleteness  of  the  verb  alone 
is  clear.  The  same  is  true  of  any  transitive  verb 
which  cannot  be  used  intransitively  and  whose  object 
is  not  expressed  in  its  own  sentence. 

The  same  principle  holds  true  with  the  class  of 
verbs  compounded  with  prepositions  which  retain 
their  force  in  the  combination.  Accedo,  subdo,  cir- 
cumsto,  are  examples.  The  only  difference  between 
these  and  the  simple  transitives  is  in  the  nature  of 
the  repetition  implied.  The  element  repeated  by 
implication  is  suggested  by  the  preposition,  not  by  the 
verb,  and  is  therefore  in  a  different  relation  to  the 


102  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

verb.  But  tliis  is  a  minor  distinction,  as  will  be  clear 
from  two  or  three  examples.  Cato,  R.R.  LXXIV.l: 
Farinam  in  mortarium  indito,  aquae  paulatim  addito. 
Livy  1.57.11 :  Et  turn  quidem  ah  nocturno  iuvenali  ludo 
in  castra  redeunt.  Paucis  interiectis  diehus  Sex.  Tar- 
quinius  .  .  .  Collatiam  venit.  Tac.  Ann.  1.57.12 :  et 
ereptus  Segestes  magna  cum  propinquorum  et  clien- 
tium  manu.    Inerant  feminae  nobiles. 

The  type  of  sentence  relation  with  which  retrospec- 
tive incompleteness  of  content  is  employed,  is  ob- 
viously not  determined  by  the  incompleteness  itself, 
but  instead,  this  element  of  sentence  connection  points 
to  some  other  element  which  is  the  determining  factor. 
Ordinarily  that  factor  is  repetition  of  content.  This 
is  especially  obvious  when  the  incompleteness  appears 
in  demonstratives  or  verbs,  but  it  is  also  beyond  doubt 
in  the  case  of  comparatives  of  all  sorts.  With  the 
demonstrative  adverbs  the  relation  indicated  is  the 
same  as  that  with  the  similar  adjectives.  The  second 
sentence,  therefore,  in  all  such  instances  is  subse- 
quent logically  to  the  first.  The  incompleteness  serves 
to  call  attention  to  the  relation  rather  than  to  define 
it.  If  the  repetition  is  not  sufficiently  obvious  when 
thus  indicated  it  is  often  expressed  in  words.  Only 
with  those  conjunctions  whose  origin  is  not  to  be  found 
in  the  demonstrative  pronoun  or  in  the  relative  does 
the  relation  indicated  vary.  Et,  sed,  and  enim  were 
found  serving  as  mere  indicators,  modifying  their  en- 
tire sentences,  and  pointing  to  types  of  relation  con- 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  103 

siderably  varied,  each  limited  in  range  by  its  own 
adverbial  meaning. 

To  enumerate  the  conjunctions  therefore  that  are 
found  supplementing  the  various  types  of  retrospec- 
tive incompleteness  is  largely  fruitless  for  they  are 
the  same  as  those  found  with  the  types  of  repetition 
already  studied  to  which  incompleteness  regularly 
points.  The  following  are  cited  for  special  matters 
of  interest  attaching  to  them.  For  example,  Quint. 
Inst.  Orat.  1.6.22 :  Recta  est  haec  via,  quis  negat?  Sed 
adiacet  et  mollior  et  magis  trita.  Adiacet  and  the 
comparative  adjectives  both  indicate  repetition  of  con- 
tent which  would  regularly  indicate  a  sentence  logic- 
ally subsequent  to  the  preceding.  But  the  rhetorical 
question,  quis  negat,  injects  an  emphasis  which  will 
be  found  later  to  suggest  a  concessive  tone.^  By  itself 
this  suggestion  is  not  sufficiently  strong  to  counteract 
the  influence  of  the  repetition,  with  the  result  that  sed 
is  added  to  reinforce  it.  Regularly  et  or  que  is  the  con- 
junction used  with  incomplete  verbs  if  the  need  of  any 
is  felt.  (Cf.  Tac.  Ann.  XIV.32.11:  et  inerat,  and  Tac. 
Ann.  XV.26.5:  addiditque.)  A  conflict  of  tone  is  pres- 
ent in  Sallust,  Cat.  6.4 :  Igitur  reges  populique  finitumi 
hello  temptare;  pauci  ex  amicis  auxilio  esse;  nam 
ceteri  metu  perculsi  a  periculis  aherant.  Although 
ceterus,  as  an  incomplete  adjective,  exerts  the  force 
of  repetition  of  content,  it  will  be  found,  by  virtue  of 
its  meaning  which  isolates  one  individual  or  group  of 
individuals  from  a  larger  whole,  to  suggest  contrast 
almost    irresistibly    (cf.    p.    153).      In    the    present 

1  Cf.  Chapter  VI,  pp.  151  ff. 


104  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

instance,  Sallust  felt  the  second  sentence  to  be  explana- 
tory and  made  sure  of  conveying  this  tone  by  using 
nam.  The  opposite  is  the  case  in  Livy  XXI.29.7 :  Mul- 
titudo  timehat  quidem  liostem  nondum  oblitterata 
memoria  superioris  belli,  sed  magis  iter  immensum 
Alpesque  .  .  .  metuehat.  Content  repetition  is  not 
merely  implied  in  magis:  it  is  expressed  in  metuehat; 
but  contrast  is  the  chief  relation  and  this  is  prepared 
for  by  quidem  and  plainly  marked  by  sed.  Compare 
Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.7.27 :  ut  dies  inter  eos  curiae  fuisse 
videretur,  convivium  Tusculani.  Postero  autem  die, 
etc. 

In  all  of  the  groups  illustrated  so  far  in  the  present 
chapter,  groups  of  conjunctions,  pronouns,  adjectives, 
adverbs,  and  verbs,  the  incompleteness  inherent  in  the 
words  has  been  semantic.  There  has  been  in  each 
instance  something  essentially  incomplete  or  relative 
in  the  meaning  of  the  word  itself.  The  principle,  how- 
ever, like  that  of  repetition,  finds  demonstration  in  the 
field  of  function  as  well.  There  are  modes  and  tenses 
which  are  essentially  relative  and  which  cannot  occur 
in  consecutive  discourse  without  the  implication  of 
other  sentences  outside  themselves,  in  which  their 
relativity  can  be  satisfied. 

It  is  not  now  a  question  of  the  origin  of  modal  uses 
in  Latin,  but  of  their  actual  status  as  they  appear  in 
Latin  literature.  The  original  use  of  the  subjunctive 
was  no  doubt  an  independent  one.  Fortunately  there 
is  enough  of  this  independent  usage  left  in  historical 
Latin  to  make  it  clear  and  to  illustrate  the  develop- 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  105 

ment  of  the  subordinate  uses.^  But  in  historical  Latin 
the  subjunctive  had  acquired  a  pretty  strong  notion  of 
contingency,  arising  out  of  its  very  general  function  of 
expressing  ^vill  rather  than  fact.  Even  in  the  more 
precise  imperative  there  will  appear  the  same  ten- 
dency when  it  is  used  in  consecutive  discourse.  As 
used  in  Cicero,  for  example,  the  subjunctive  mode 
gives  to  its  verb  an  incompleteness  or  relativity  such 
as  their  meaning  gave  to  words  in  the  preceding  cate- 
gories. The  difficulty  in  making  this  clear  in  illustra- 
tion lies  in  the  fact  that  logical  incompleteness  in  this 
modal  usage  was  developed  in  Latin  into  syntactical 
incompleteness  so  thoroughly  and  so  early  that  as  a 
rule  mechanical  signs  of  subordination  accompany  the 
mode. 

But  not  always.  Necesse  est  exhiheas,  licet  videan- 
tur,  monehat  rediret,  exclamat  irent,  rogat  quid  sit, 
and  the  like  are  by  no  means  unfamiliar.  It  can  be 
shown  later,  I  think,  how  these  phrases  originated  and 
by  what  steps  the  subjunctive  acquired  its  relativity. 
But  for  the  present,  the  fact  to  note  is  that  in  classical 
Latin  the  mode  itself  suggests  relativity:  it  has  come 
to  be  felt  as  incomplete  by  itself.  In  all  of  these 
phrases  the  meaning  of  the  verb  which  appears  in  the 
indicative  does  much  to  anticipate  the  subjunctive  with 
its  tone  of  subordination;  the  types  of  clauses  which 
this  construction  can  follow  are  few  and  familiar. 
Necesse  est  or  exclamat  act  as  signals  to  the  mind  to 
remain  open  for  several  possible  sorts  of  expression 

1  See  especially, — Morris :  The  Subjunctive  in  Independent  Sentences 
in  Plautus.     A.  J.  P.  XVIII.  (1897),  Nos.  70,  71,  72. 


106  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

that  might  follow  and  of  these  the  subjunctive  is  one. 
But  that  the  subjunctive  plays  its  part  is  obvious  when 
the  order  of  the  clauses  is  reversed:  exhibeas  necesse 
est,  quid  sit  rogat. 

Two  examples  will  be  sufficient  to  illustrate  this 
point.  In  reading  Cicero,  In  V  err  em  II.II.78.191 :  Nam 
aut  exhibeas  nobis  Verucium,  the  mind  is  left  in  sus- 
pense, not  alone  because  of  aut  which  by  its  own  in- 
completeness implies  another  aut  clause  to  follow,  but 
by  the  incompleteness  of  the  verb.  And  that  again  is 
due  to  the  mode.  The  judgment  is  held  in  suspense 
until  the  following  necesse  est  aut  te  Verucium  esse 
fateare  is  read.  Suppose  the  necesse  est  had  been 
reserved  to  the  end :  the  incompleteness  due  to  the  sub- 
junctive would  still  have  continued  after  the  incom- 
pleteness due  to  the  aut  was  satisfied  and  until  the 
indicative  was  reached.  So  we  read  in  Tac,  Hist. 
IV.60.15 :  Simulata  ea  fuerint,  and  we  have  no  logically 
complete  sentence.  To  say  that  it  is  not  syntactically 
complete  either,  is  simply  to  accept  the  general  recog- 
nition of  the  logical  incompleteness  which  has  led  to 
this  syntactical  classification.  The  following  clause 
adds  a  clear  pointer  to  the  nature  of  the  relation  to  be 
expressed:  an  retinere  saevientes  nequiverint.  There 
is  no  longer  doubt  as  to  the  clause  relations,  but  there 
is  no  logical  completeness  until  the  sentence  closes  with 
parum  adfirmatur. 

These  two  illustrations  of  the  incompleteness  inher- 
ent in  the  subjunctive  mode  are  really  examples  of 
anticipatory  incompleteness  and  are  given  here  only 
because  they  make  the  force  of  the  subjunctive  more 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  107 

obvious.  Compare  Livy  XXII.39.20 :  malo,  te  sapiens 
hostis  metuat,  quam  stulti  cives  laudent.  The  contrast 
between  the  two  subjunctive  clauses  is  not  of  impor- 
tance here,  but  rather  the  incompleteness  imparted  to 
each  of  them  by  the  subjunctive  mode,  further  illus- 
trated by  the  following  instances.  Tac.  Ann.  11.17.6: 
exclamat  irent,  sequerentur  Romanas  aves  propria 
legionum  numina.  Pliny,  Epist.  VI.16.15:  In  com- 
mune consultant,  intra  tecta  suhsistant  an  in  aperto 
vagentur. 

The  verbs  in  the  indicative  mode  used  in  connection 
with  the  subjunctives  illustrated  fall  into  certain 
rather  narrow  categories  and  play  an  essential  part 
in  making  clear  the  sentence  connection.  But  none  of 
them  really  make  necessary  the  subjunctive  mode  fol- 
lowing them  so  that  an  important  part  is  played  by  the 
incompleteness  of  that  mode.  A  discussion  of  the 
development  of  this  type  is  reserved  for  Chapter  VII. 

Even  when  the  verb  in  the  indicative  does  not  fall 
into  one  of  these  categories  of  commanding,  urging, 
asking,  permitting,  and  the  like,  the  subjunctive  mode 
in  ordinary  use  has  still  a  relativity  or  incomplete- 
ness, usually  marked  by  a  conjunction  but  not  depend- 
ing on  any  such  external  means  for  its  primary  con- 
nective force.  That  this  is  so,  is  indicated  by  the  sub- 
junctive use  with  conjunctions  so  different  in  origin 
as  si  and  ut,  but  in  classical  Latin  the  conjunction  and 
the  subjunctive  are  so  closely  united  that  it  would  be 
beyond  the  sphere  of  this  present  study  to  do  more 
than  indicate  the  essential  incompleteness  of  the  sub- 
junctive mode  in  actual  practice. 


108  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

The  infinitive,  too,  has  been  looked  upon  as  an  incom- 
plete mode  and  in  so  far  as  it  has  any  real  verbal  force 
it  is  incomplete  by  itself.  But  it  is  far  more  noun  than 
verb  in  all  its  usages  and  hardly  comes  into  a  discus- 
sion of  sentence  relations.  The  phrase,  in  hostem  ire 
exercitum,  is  surely  incomplete  as  it  stands  alone,  but 
there  is  more  than  mere  logical  incompleteness.  The 
accusative  indicates  something  different  and  the  con- 
clusion of  the  sentence  with  dixit  indicates  that  the 
phrase  was  really  substantival,  the  virtual  object  of 
the  verb.  The  relation  expressed  is  no  doubt  analo- 
gous to  that  noted  above  with  the  subjunctive,  but  the 
actual  parallel  is  with  a  noun  within  a  sentence,  its 
relation  to  the  rest  of  the  sentence  marked  by  its  case. 

The  indicative  mode,  of  course,  has  no  notion  of 
incompleteness  inherent  in  it.  In  so  far  as  it  shows 
any  influence  of  the  principle  of  relativity  it  will  be 
found  to  be  due  to  the  effect  of  tense  and  not  mode 
or  else  to  the  meaning  of  the  verb.  The  imperative, 
too,  is  primarily  a  "complete"  mode,  but  one  adapted 
to  use  in  conversation  rather  than  in  consecutive  dis- 
course. This  latter  fact  will  be  found  later  to  account 
for  an  anticipatory  incompleteness  of  considerable 
importance.^ 

Finally,  there  are  two  tenses  which  are  essentially 
incomplete.  To  say  that  anything  had  happened,  im- 
plies that  something  else  did  happen  to  which  it  was 
prior,  and  to  say  that  something  will  have  happened 
implies  an  intermediate  time  between  the  present  and 
some  future  time  indicated.    In  other  words,  the  plu- 

1  Chapter  VI,  pp.  173  ff. 


RETROSPECTIVE  INCOMPLETENESS  109 

perfect  and  the  future  perfect  are  relative  tenses  and 
by  the  very  meaning  which  they  give  to  a  word,  render 
its  total  meaning  incomplete.  Tac.  Hist.  1.67.4:  Ini- 
tium  hello  fuit  avaritia  ac  festinatio  unaetvicensimae 
legionis;  rapuerant  pecuniam  missam  in  stipendium 
castelli,  etc.  Sallust,  Cat.  7.5 :  Igitur  talibus  viris  non 
labor  insolitus,  non  locus  ullus  asper  aut  arduus 
erat,  non  armatus  hostis  formidulosus:  virtus  omnia 
domuerat.  In  all  such  cases  the  tense  of  the  second 
verb  implies  something  antecedent  to  the  time  of  the 
first  sentence.  Regularly  the  sense  is  explanatory 
largely  by  virtue  of  the  suggestion  of  antecedence 
lying  in  the  tense,  but  partly  also  as  a  result  of  the 
anticipation  inherent  in  the  first  sentence.  In  Caesar, 
Bell.  Civ.  1.51.1,  the  demonstrative  pronoun  is  used 
without  changing  the  force  of  the  pluperfect  in  any 
way:  Nuntiatur  Afranio  magnos  commeatus,  qui  iter 
habebant  ad  Caesarem,  ad  flumen  constitisse.  Vene- 
rant  eo  sagittarii  ex  Rutenis,  etc. 

Very  frequently  a  conjunction  supports  the  pluper- 
fect tense  and  the  conjunction  is  regularly  enim  or 
nam.  For  example,  Tac.  Ann.  XV.2.1 :  hunc  ego  eodem 
mecum  patre  genitum  .  .  .  in  possessionem  Armeniae 
deduxi,  qui  tertius  potentiae  gradus  habetur:  nam 
Medos  Pacorus  ante  ceperat.  Cicero,  In  Q.  Caec. 
19.63:  Atque  ille  Cn.  Pompeius  ita  cum  C.  lulio  con- 
tendit,  ut  tu  mecum;  quaestor  enim  Albuci  fuerat,  ut 
tu  Verris. 

It  is  clear  that  retrospective  incompleteness  of 
function  is  as  inconclusive  in  defining  relation  as  is 
that  of  content.    It  indicates  rather  than  defines  the 


110  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

relation  except  in  such  a  special  use  as  that  of  the 
pluperfect  tense.  Its  importance  is  not  great  but  it 
must  be  understood,  as  must  all  retrospective  incom- 
pleteness, primarily  to  make  comprehensible  the  prin- 
ciple of  incompleteness  in  its  really  important  field, 
the  anticipatory. 


CHAPTER  V 

CHANGE 

If  you  say,  ''The  house  is  white;  the  house  is  old," 
the  repetition  of  the  word  house  and  the  repetition  of 
the  sentence  structure  combine  to  convey  the  notion 
of  two  statements  starting  from  the  same  point  and 
coordinate  with  each  other.  If  you  say,  ' '  The  house  is 
white;  white  is  my  favourite  colour,"  the  repetition 
of  the  word  white  without  the  repetition  of  the  sen- 
tence structure  gives  the  notion  of  consecutive  ideas, 
one  beginning  where  the  other  left  off.  If  you  say, 
**The  house  is  white;  the  barn  is  red,"  the  first  thing 
to  strike  your  hearer's  attention  is  no  longer  verbal 
repetition  but  verbal  change.  The  repetition  of  struc- 
ture still  conveys  the  notion  that  the  ideas  are  con- 
temporaneous but  the  change  indicates  at  once  that 
they  are  in  opposition.  Here  are  three  distinct  sen- 
tence relations.  The  first  two,  by  the  very  fact  that 
they  repeat  in  the  second  sentence  an  element  from 
the  first,  call  attention  to  the  fact  of  sentence  relation. 
The  third  can  do  this  only  indirectly,  through  the  fact 
that  every  change  which  is  sufficiently  abrupt  and 
clearly  enough  defined  to  mark  a  definite  sentence  rela- 
tion takes  place  within  a  given  category,  so  that  there 
is  an  unconscious  sense  of  repetition  latent  in  the 


112  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

change.  Otherwise  change  can  only  define  a  relation 
which  is  necessarily  implied  by  juxtaposition. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  change  has  sometimes  been 
discarded  as  a  means  of  expressing  sentence  relation.^ 
But  the  mere  fact  that  it  does  not  primarily  draw 
attention  to  relation  is  no  reason  for  discarding  it  as  a 
means  of  defining  relation.  The  principle  of  incom- 
pleteness does  primarily  indicate  relation  and  in  addi- 
tion frequently  defines  it,  and  is  constantly  used  to 
indicate  in  advance  a  use  of  the  principle  of  change  to 
follow.  In  other  words,  the  principles  of  repetition 
and  of  incompleteness  occur  many  times  to  indicate 
or  call  attention  to  the  relation  defined  by  the  principle 
of  change.  Obviously  change  is  more  limited  in  its 
effective  range,  and  it  is  easy  to  see  why  the  types  of 
relation  indicated  by  change  are  more  sharply  defined 
than  the  others,  and  why  so  much  of  the  work  of 
anticipation  is  directed  toward  making  clear  relations 
marked  by  change. 

The  illustration  used  above  shows  semantic  change. 
From  what  has  been  already  discovered  in  the  use  of 
repetition  and  incompleteness,  it  is  to  be  expected  that 
there  will  be  formal  change  as  well  as  semantic;  in 
other  words,  that  the  present  principle  will  be  found 
operating  as  well  in  the  field  of  function  as  in  the  field 
of  meaning.  And  this  is  actually  the  case.  But  in  the 
instances  of  functional  change  the  usage  seems  to  be 
less  narrowly  confined  to  the  expression  of  a  single 
relation.  Change  of  mode  or  tense  is  noticeable  at 
once  and  is  therefore  effective  in  defining  sentence 

1  Miss  Nye:  Sentence  Connection,  p.  27. 


CHANGE  113 


relation  even  when  it  is  not  forced  into  striking  relief 
by  contrast.  Semantic  change  is  effective  only  when 
it  is  so  abrupt  as  to  suggest  at  once  some  contrast; 
functional  change  indicates  a  greater  variety  of  rela- 
tions. If  you  say  ''John  came  home;  the  house  had 
burned  down,"  the  change  of  tense,  while  obscured  to 
a  certain  extent  by  the  incompleteness  inherent  in  the 
pluperfect,  is  still  effective.  If  you  say  ''John  came 
home;  the  house  will  burn  down,"  the  change  of  tense 
is  effective  in  a  different  way  and  no  longer  obscured 
by  any  functional  incompleteness.  The  change,  in  this 
case,  indicates  a  fact  subsequent  to  the  first  and  not 
yet  accomplished.  In  the  use  of  Latin  modes  this  be- 
comes more  obvious  and  more  easily  illustrated. 
Necesse  est  eas:  the  change  of  mode  is  the  distinguish- 
ing mark  of  the  sentence  relation.  So  in  the  very 
familiar  use  of  the  infinitive  mode  in  indirect  dis- 
course, the  modal  change  is  an  indicator,  even  though 
that  relation  has  been  indicated  already  by  a  different 
means  in  the  first  sentence. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  take  up  semantic  change 
first.  It  is  obvious  that  it  is  on  the  whole  a  verv 
exceptional  sentence  which  does  not  show  decided 
semantic  change  from  the  preceding  sentence.  One 
showing  no  such  change  is  very  nearly  unique,  a  mere 
rhetorical  curiosity  used  with  some  very  special  pur- 
pose. It  is  partly  on  this  account  that  the  most  insig- 
nificant types  of  repetition  are  noticeable;  and  it  is 
also  on  this  account  that,  to  serve  as  a  tangible  means 
of  defining  sentence  relation,  semantic  change  must 
be  abrupt  enough  to  compel  attention,  and  that  it  must 


114  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

also  be  confined  within  a  sufficiently  narrow  range  to 
be  noticeable  as  efficient  semantic  change.  In  other 
words,  there  must  be  abrupt  change  of  meaning  occur- 
ring between  words  which  are  either  essentially  or  at 
least  temporarily  in  some  common  category. 

This  fact  is  important  for  an  understanding  of  the 
principle  of  change;  it  is  also  convenient  as  furnish- 
ing a  means  of  classification.  An  illustration  of  ex- 
tremes will  make  it  clear:  *'It  is  a  glorious  day. 
Phalaris  was  a  tyrant. ' '  There  is  semantic  change  here 
without  a  doubt.  But  it  is  not  significant.  It  is  not 
safe  to  say  that  there  is  no  relation  between  the  sen- 
tences, but  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  the  relation 
was  conceived  in  an  erratic  if  not  insane  mind.  '  ^  The 
day  is  heavy.  My  heart  is  light."  Here  again  is 
semantic  change  and  this  time  significant.  And  for 
this  reason :  heavy  and  light  are  adjectives  in  the  same 
category,  that  is,  adjectives  of  the  same  sort  and 
applicable  to  the  same  sort  of  nouns.  That  fact  and 
the  further  fact  of  verbal  repetition  in  the  is  and  for- 
mal repetition  in  the  arrangement  of  the  sentence,  calls 
attention  to  the  sentence  relation.  But  the  contrast, 
the  abrupt  semantic  change,  finally  defines  that  rela- 
tion. Had  the  sentences  been  ' '  The  day  is  heavy.  My 
heart  is  sad, ' '  all  the  facts  of  the  case  would  have  been 
the  same  except  for  the  absence  of  abrupt  semantic 
change.  And  yet  just  that  difference  makes  the  sen- 
tence relations  in  the  two  .examples  totally  unlike. 
This  is  clear  from  a  consideration  of  what  conjunc- 
tions might  be  used  to  further  emphasize  the  relation 
in  each  example. 


CHANGE  115 


To  repeat,  the  use  of  semantic  change  is  possible 
only  within  common  categories  and  only  when  the 
change  is  sufficiently  abrupt  to  be  significant.  The 
illustrations  may  then  be  conveniently  grouped 
according  to  the  categories  of  the  words  which  exhibit 
the  change.  The  association  between  the  words  may 
be  effected  by  their  own  essential  meaning,  in  which 
case  it  is  a  real  and  permanent  association ;  or  it  may 
be  effected  by  the  special  meaning  given  the  words  by 
the  context,  in  which  case  it  is  a  fictitious  and  tempo- 
rary association.  Often  it  is  not  easy  to  distinguish 
the  two,  each  element  reinforcing  the  other. 

Probably  the  only  words  actually  in  absolute,  nat- 
ural contrast,  that  is,  words  in  which,  by  their  essen- 
tial meaning,  the  semantic  content  of  the  one  is  the 
exact  opposite  of  the  semantic  content  of  the  other, 
are  the  positive  and  negative  adjectives  built  on  the 
same  stem,  such  as  aequus  and  iniquus.  But,  prac- 
tically speaking,  the  range  is  much  wider:  magnus, 
parvus;  lente,  celeriter;  nunc,  tunc;  these  and  many 
more  can  scarcely  be  used  in  adjacent  sentences  with- 
out necessarily  suggesting  contrast.  At  the  other 
extreme  are  such  words  as  proper  names  which  sug- 
gest no  contrast  whatever  unless  their  particular  con- 
text makes  the  change  between  them  so  abrupt  as  to 
be  efficient.  Between  these  two  extremes  fall  many 
cases  not  belonging  clearly  to  either  group.  Senatus 
and  populus,  or  pedes  and  eques  have  attained  their 
element  of  contrast  by  usage  but  it  has  almost  become 
a  permanent  characteristic. 


116  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

The  fact  that  change,  and  in  particular,  semantic 
change,  has  so  limited  a  range  of  effective  usage,  makes 
it  unnecessary  to  go  extensively  into  illustration.  But 
though  it  is  narrowly  confined,  perhaps  because  it  is 
so  confined,  the  usage  is  most  important :  it  is  employed 
to  express  a  clear-cut  and  familiar  type  of  sentence 
relation  and  underlies  a  very  common  conjunctional 
usage.  This  will  be  evident  after  a  study  of  the  exam- 
ples gathered  here  and  rather  arbitrarily  grouped  for 
the  sake  of  convenience. 

As  stated  above  there  are  many  words  whose  mean- 
ings make  them  either  the  exact  or  the  practical  oppo- 
sites  of  other  words.  Such  are  primarily  words  like 
nocens  and  innocens,  piger  and  impiger;  but  there  is 
no  sharp  line  between  these  and  such  other  words  as 
celer  and  lentus,  albus  and  niger,  olim  and  nunc.  Each 
of  these  words  has  a  wide  range  of  usage  by  itself,  but 
when  they  are  used  in  close  connection  with  their 
opposites,  the  fact  of  semantic  change  is  so  evident, 
the  change  itself  so  abrupt,  as  to  make  an  unmistak- 
able indication  of  sentence  relation.  The  sentences  in 
which  they  stand  are  thrown  into  the  same  direct 
opposition  that  the  words  themselves  have  from  the 
semantic  point  of  view. 

Seneca,  De  Ira  II.18.2 :  facile  est  enim  teneros  adhuc 
animos  componere,  difficulter  reciduntur  vitia  quae 
nobiscum  creverunt.  Though  taken  apart  from  their 
context,  these  two  sentences  stand  clearly  in  opposi- 
tion to  each  other.  The  first  one  need  not  have  been 
followed  by  a  sentence  in  opposition  to  it.  It  is  per- 
fectly conceivable  that  any  one  of  several  types  of 


CHANGE  117 


sentence  might  have  followed:  for  example,  a  conclu- 
sion drawn  from  the  fact  stated,  possibly  introduced 
by  ergo.  But  the  first  word  of  the  second  sentence  at 
once  fixes  the  relation,  and  this  is  because  of  the  abrupt 
semantic  change.  The  same  is  clear  in  all  of  the  follow- 
ing examples.  Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  III.87.2:  Perexigua 
pars  illius  exercitus  superest;  magna  pars  deperiit. 
Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  20.56:  quod  innocens,  si  accu- 
satus  sit,  ahsolvi  potest,  nocens,  nisi  accusatus  fuerit, 
condemnari  non  potest.  Sallust,  Cat.  58.17 :  Semper  in 
proelio  eis  maxumum  est  periculum  qui  maxume 
timent:  audacia  pro  muro  habetur.  Sallust,  Bell.  Jug. 
10.6:  Nam  concordia  parvae  res  crescunt,  discordia 
maxumae  dilabuntur.  Livy  XXXIV.13.5 :  Adhuc  prae- 
donum  magis  quam  bellantium  militastis  more;  nunc 
iusta  pugna  Jiostes  cum  hostibus  conferetis  manus. 
Quint.  Inst.  Orat.  II.4.6:  Facile  remedium  est  uber- 
tatis;  sterilia  nullo  labore  vincuntur.  Seneca,  De  Ira 
11.28. 8:  Aliena  vitia  in  oculis  habemus,  a  tergo  nostra 
sunt.  Tac.  Hist.  1.15.19 :  Fortunam  adhuc  tantum 
adversam  tidisti:  secundae  res  acrioribus  stimulis 
animos  explorant,  quia  miseriae  tolerantur,  felicitate 
corrumpimur. 

In  these  illustrations  a  number  of  facts  stand  out 
distinctly.  First  of  all,  it  is  the  abrupt  semantic  change 
which  determines  the  sentence  relations.  The  ideas 
brought  into  sharp  opposition  may  be  contained  in 
very  different  words  as  readily  as  in  those  that  are  in 
the  same  grammatical  category.  The  range  is  all  the 
way  from  such  similar  words  as  concordia  and  dis- 
cordia, or  adhuc  and  nunc,  to  such  unlike  words  as 


118  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

timent  and  audacia.  Ubertatis  and  sferilia,  fortunam 
adversam  and  secundae  res  are  midway  between  these 
extremes.  Furthermore,  the  position  of  the  contrasted 
words  is  only  an  aid  to  the  understanding  of  the  rela- 
tions. As  a  general  rule  it  is  true  that  some  method  is 
employed  to  emphasize  the  abruptness  of  the  change. 
The  two  words  may  be  each  at  the  head  of  its  clause,  as 
in  the  example  from  Cicero,  or  the  first  at  the  begin- 
ning, the  other  at  the  extreme  end,  as  in  the  case  from 
the  De  Ira;  or  vice  versa,  as  in  the  instance  from 
Quintilian.  The  last  is  the  most  striking,  the  first  is 
probably  the  most  frequent. 

Again,  it  is  very  noticeable  in  all  of  these  examples 
that  although  the  abrupt  change,  the  chief  factor  in 
defining  relation,  comes  usually  in  the  first  word  of 
the  second  sentence,  making  it  sufiQciently  marked  to 
assure  its  effect,  there  is  almost  always  much  supple- 
mentary change  to  reinforce  this  effect.  For  example, 
in  the  instance  from  Livy:  nunc  contains  the  first  sign 
of  relation,  an  abrupt  change  from  adhuc;  but  this  is 
followed  up  by  further  noticeable  change  in  iusta 
pugna  from  praedonum  more.  So  in  the  example  from 
Cicero :  tiocens  and  innocens  furnish  the  first  and  most 
important  change ;  but  this  is  supplemented  and  rein- 
forced by  the  further  contrast  between  ahsolvi  and 
condemnari,  and  between  potest  and  non  potest.  The 
same  is  just  as  noticeable  in  the  Senecan  case:  the 
primary  contrast  is  between  in  oculis  and  a  tergo,  but 
equally  ^-ivid  is  the  supplementary  contrast  between 
aliena  and  nostra.  In  Pliny,  Epist.  TV. 7. 3,  there  is  a 
typical  instance  of  the  piling  up  of  the  contrast:  ita 


CHANGE  119 


recta  ingenia  debilitat  verecimdia,  perversa  confirmat 
audacia. 

Finally,  there  is  frequent,  almost  regular,  occurrence 
of  some  sort  of  repetition  in  these  examples.  It  serves 
to  draw  attention  to  their  sentence  relation  and  to 
mark  the  sentences  as  coincident.  It  ranges  through 
all  types  of  functional  repetition  and  even  repetition 
of  meaning  appears.  It  is  more  fully  discussed  below 
(pp.  124  and  125). 

A  favourite  rhetorical  device  of  Cicero  is  based  on 
this  principle  of  abrupt  change  and  falls  under  the  head 
of  changes,  essentially  inherent  in  the  word  meaning,  a 
device  by  no  means  confined  to  Cicero :  the  use  of  a 
negative  statement  for  the  sake  of  emphasizing  by 
contrast  the  following  positive  sentence.  At  present 
it  is  with  the  second  sentence  that  we  have  to  do. 
Anticipation  there  undoubtedly  is,  but  the  determina- 
tion of  the  sentence  relation  lies  in  the  contrast  in  the 
second  sentence.  It  was  Cicero  who  chiefly  used  this 
in  its  simple  form  with  a  pure  contrast.  Pro  Rose. 
Am.  27.73:  Non  quaero  ahs  te,  quare  patrem  Sex. 
Roscius  occiderit,  quaero,  quo  modo  occiderit.  The 
same  effect  is  obtained  in  the  Pro  Quinctio,  27.85 :  haec 
omnia  mitto;  illud  dico,  dominum  expidsum  esse 
praedio.  This  use  of  mitto  has  the  effect  of  a  negative. 
The  order  may  be  reversed  so  that  the  negative  clause 
is  the  second.  The  only  real  change  is  that  there  is 
then  no  apparent  anticipation.  Cicero,  Pro  Rose. 
Am.  21.58:  Ego  quid  acceperim,  scio,  quid  dicem, 
nescio.  The  importance  of  the  repetition  in  this 
example,  indicating  the  relation  which  the  semantic 


120  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

change  defines,  will  be  discussed  after  the  other  types 
of  change  have  been  illustrated. 

There  are  very  many  words  without  inherent  con- 
trast into  which  persistent  usage  within  a  given  cate- 
gory or  field  of  meaning  has  injected  an  element  of 
contrast,  so  that  when  they  are  used  together  within 
that  category  they  are  entirely  like  the  words  already 
discussed  in  the  influence  which  they  exert  on  the 
expression  of  sentence  relations.  Domi  and  foris 
furnish  an  extreme  instance  of  such  words,  so  extreme, 
however,  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  think  of  them 
without  getting  a  sense  of  tacit  contrast.  Not  so  with 
populus  and  senatus  or  with  verba  and  facta.  There 
is,  however,  no  new  principle  involved :  a  few  illustra- 
tions will  serve  to  make  the  case  more  obvious.  Cicero, 
Pro  Rose.  Am.  5.13:  Accusant  ii  qui  in  fortunas  huius 
invaserunt,  causam  dicit  is  cui  praeter  calamitatem 
nihil  reliquerunt.  Sallust,  Cat.  9.2:  lurgia  discordias 
simultates  cum  hostibus  exercebant,  cives  cum  civibus 
de  virtute  certabant.  Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.  30.1 :  Apud 
plebeni  gravis  invidia,  patres  solliciti  erant.^  Tac.  Ann. 
IL19.8:  Hie  pedes  adstitit;  equitem  propinquis  lucis 
texere.  Tac.  Ann.  I.l.l:  Urbem  Romam  a  principio 
reges  habuere;  libertatem  et  consulatum  L.  Brutus 
instituit.  Cicero,  In  Verrem  1.15.44:  verbo  illam 
poscere  videbatur,  re  vera  iudicia  poscebat.  The  con- 
trast in  Sallust,  Cat.  9.4,  is  between  m  bello  and  in  pace. 

There  are  left  for  consideration  the  examples  of 
abrupt  semantic  change  which  is  essentially  due  not  to 
any  inherent  contrast  of  meaning  but  to  a  contrast 


CHANGE  121 


temporarily  given  to  the  words  by  the  context  in  which 
they  stand.  The  only  essential  difference  between 
these  and  the  cases  already  studied  is  that  more  de- 
pends on  the  context  for  an  understanding  of  the 
sentence  relation,  since  from  the  context  arises  the 
contrast  between  the  words.  If  they  stood  alone  in  a 
list  they  wouH  not  be  thought  of  as  contrasts.  Aequus 
and  iniquus  can  be  nothing  else  than  contrasts ;  not  so 
maiestatis  and  de  pecuniis  repetundis.  These  two 
seem  to  have  more  of  similarity  than  of  abrupt  change. 
But  in  their  setting  in  Tac.  Ann.  1.74.22,  the  situation 
makes  the  contrast  perfectly  obvious:  patiens  tulit 
ahsolvi  reum  criminibus  maiestatis:  de  pecuniis  repe- 
tundis ad  reciperatores  itum  est.  The  position  of  the 
words  and  the  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  verbs 
supplements  the  effect  of  the  context.  A  better  illus- 
tration is  Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.  102.7:  quia  parentis 
ahunde  habemus,  amicorum  neque  nobis  neque  cuiquam 
omnium  satis  fuit.  Without  the  context,  parens  and 
amicus  would  scarcely  be  thought  of  as  contrasted  con- 
cepts; with  the  context,  aided  by  the  usual  supple- 
mentary contrast,  and  the  emphatic  juxtaposition  of 
the  words,  there  is  no  doubt  of  their  contrasted  use. 
Other  examples  are  the  following:  Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp. 
IV.5.9 :  Peripatetici  autem  ad  placandos  animos  multa 
adferunt,  spinas  partiendi  et  definiendi  praetermittunt. 
Sallust,  Cat.  52.6 :  Non  agitur  de  vectigalibus  neque  de 
sociorum  iniuriis:  libertas  et  anima  nostra  in  dubio 
est.  Tac.  Hist.  IV.17.24:  Libertatem  natura  etiam 
mutis  animalibus  datam,  virtutem  proprium  hominum 
honum. 


122  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

A  few  characteristic  uses  of  the  principle  of  semantic 
change  remain  to  be  illustrated.  They  are  not  essen- 
tially different  from  those  already  shown,  but  form 
sufficiently  distinct  groups  under  the  general  divisions 
to  be  worth  indicating.  One  is  the  use  of  the  demon- 
strative pronouns,  hie  and  ille.  Cicero,  De  Fin. 
11.26.82:  Sed  haec  nihil  sane  ad  rem:  ilia  videamus, 
quae  a  te  de  amicitia  dicta  sunt.  The  sane  gives 
warning  here  of  the  abrupt  change  to  follow.  It  does 
not  occur  in  the  following:  Cicero,  Pro  P.  Sulla  3.8: 
Ilia  enim  ad  breve  tempus  severitatem  postulavit,  haec 
in  omni  vita  misericordiam  lenitatemque  desiderat. 
Sallust,  Cat.  54.2:  Ille  mansuetudine  et  misericordia 
clarus  factus,  huic  severitas  dignitatem  addiderat. 
The  usage  is  too  familiar  to  need  further  illustration. 

The  last  instance  above  shows  how  easily  the  usage 
might  pass  over  to  proper  names.  The  pronouns  stand 
merely  for  Cato  and  Caesar  who  are  so  brought  into 
contrast  by  the  context  that  the  names  would  have 
suggested  it  as  well  as  the  pronouns.  The  effect  is 
frequently  so  obtained.  For  example,  Caesar,  Bell. 
Civ.  III.30.4:  Sed  Caesari  circuito  maiore  iter  erat 
longius,  adverso  fiumine,  ut  vado  transire  posset; 
Pompeius,  quia  expedito  itinere  flumen  ei  transeundum 
non  erat,  magnis  itinerihus  ad  Antonium  contendit. 
Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.  52.2:  Nam  Metello  virtus  militum 
erat,  locus  advorsus;  lugurthae  alia  omnia  praeter 
milites  opportuna.  Quint.  Inst.  Oral.  II.4.33:  Apud 
Graecos  enim  lator  earum  ad  iudicem  vocabatur, 
Romanis  pro  contione  suadere  ac  dissuadere  moris 
fuit. 


CHANGE  123 


There  is  no  real  difference  when  personal  pronouns 
are  used.  Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  10.35:  Tu  id  semper 
facis,  quia  semper  potes,  ego  in  hac  causa  faciam, 
propterea  quod  in  hac  videor  posse  facere.  Caesar, 
Bell.  Civ.  11.32.11 :  At,  credo,  Caesarem  prohatis,  in  me 
offenditis.  Sallust,  Cat.  58.11:  nos  pro  patria,  pro 
lihertate,  pro  vita  certamus,  illis  supervacuaneum  est 
pro  potentia  paucorum  pugnare.  There  is  a  noticeable 
tendency  in  such  cases  to  add  a  conjunction  to  make 
the  relation  more  obvious,  as  in  Cicero,  Pro  Rose. 
Am.  30.84:  Causam  tu  nullam  reperiebas  in  Sex.  Ros- 
cio;  at  ego  in  T.  Roscio  reperio. 

Adverbial  clauses  frequently  take  the  place  of  simple 
adverbs,  with  exactly  the  same  effect  as  single  words. 
For  example,  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  43.126:  Dum 
praesidia  ulla  fuerunt,  in  Sullae  praesidiis  fuit; 
posteaquam  ah  armis  recessimus,  in  summo  otio 
rediens  a  cena  Romae  occisus  est.  Sallust,  Cat.  51.3: 
Ubi  intenderis  ingenium,  valet;  si  luhido  possidet,  ea 
dominatur,  animus  nihil  valet.  Sallust,  Cat.  3.2 :  quae 
sibi  quisque  facilia  factu  putat,  aequo  animo  accipit, 
supra  ea  veluti  ficta  pro  falsis  ducit. 

It  has  been  suggested  several  times  that,  unlike  the 
element  of  incompleteness,  change  of  meaning  is  pri- 
marily a  means  to  define  relation  rather  than  to  draw 
attention  to  it.  (Cf.  p.  112.)  This  is  very  nearly  axio- 
matic, for  the  very  nature  of  this  element  makes  it 
unsuitable  for  pointing  out  relation.  Change  of  mean- 
ing is  always  present  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  and 
only  as  the  element  of  repetition  (repetition  of  cate- 
gory, ordinarily)  gives  it  significance,  does  it  figure  as 


124  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

even  a  defining  element.  The  extent  to  whicli  more 
fundamental  elements  of  connection,  repetition  and 
incompleteness,  underlie  the  element  of  contrast  varies 
with  every  instance.  Most  frequently  some  form  of 
functional  repetition  is  present.  The  contrasted 
clauses  may  be  both  subordinate  to  a  third  clause  and 
even  introduced  by  a  common  particle:  Cicero,  Pro 
Rose.  Am.  31.86:  cum  viderent  illos  amplissimam 
pecuniam  posidere,  hunc  in  summa  mendicitate  esse. 
Quint.  Inst.  Orat,  I.  Proem.  4:  ut  operum  fastigia 
spectantur,  latent  fundamenta.  This  is  perhaps  the 
most  widely  used  type  of  contrast.  The  form,  however, 
which  the  functional  repetition  takes  is  exceedingly 
varied  as  the  following  examples  will  show.  Pliny, 
Epist.  TV.  17.1 :  Quod  admones  gratias  ago,  quod  rogas 
queror.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  II.20.2:  si  erit  pugnandum, 
arcessam  ad  societatem  lahoris;  si  quies  dahitur,  ah 
Amalthea  te  non  commovebo.  Cato,  R.R.  CXII.2:  et 
ponito  in  sole  hiduum  aut  triduum  suh  dio,  si  pluviae 
non  erunt.  Si  pluvia  erit,  in  tecto  in  cratihus  con- 
ponito.  Tac.  Ann.  XIV.9.2 :  sunt  qui  tradiderint,  sunt 
qui  ahnuant.  Seneca,  Ad  Polyh.  4.1 :  Diutius  accusare 
fata  possumus,  mutare  non  possumus. 

These  illustrations  are  all  fundamentally  alike. 
Whether  the  repetition  is  that  of  modal  construction 
or  of  meaning,  whether  slight  or  extensive,  it  is  in  each 
instance  primarily  repetition  of  function,  and  there- 
fore fixes  the  sentences  as  coincident.  Incompleteness 
of  meaning  helps  to  draw  attention  to  the  relation  in 
the  following  instances  but  does  not  change  the  funda- 
mental force  of  the  repetition  or  the  secondary  force 


CHANGE  125 


of  the  contrast.  Cato,  R.R.  XCIII.l:  Ad  arhorem 
maxumam  urnam  conmixti  sat  est:  ad  minores 
arbores  pro  ratione  indito.  Seneca,  Medea  159:  For- 
tuna  fortes  metuit,  ignavos  premit.  Seneca,  De  Vita 
Beata  10.3 :  Tu  voluptatem  complecteris,  ego  conpesco; 
tu  voluptate  frueris,  ego  utor;  etc. 

A  different  type  and  a  comparatively  rare  one  is 
illustrated  by  Livy  I.lO.l:  lam  admodum  mitigati 
animi  raptis  erant,  at  raptarum  parentes  turn  maxime 
sordida  veste  lac7'imisque  et  querellis  civitates  con- 
citabant.  The  repetition  is  primarily  of  content;  the 
type  of  sentence  relation  indicated  is  the  subsequent. 
There  is  suflScient  vagueness  about  the  relation  to  lead 
Livy  to  use  a  conjunction,  but  that  is  a  matter  of  style ; 
Tacitus  would  probably  not  have  used  the  at.  For  the 
mitigati  erant  and  the  concitabant  are  in  contrast  and 
this,  with  the  rest  of  the  context,  is  sufficient  to  suggest 
the  temporary  contrast  between  raptis  and  raptarum 
parentes,  suggested  also  by  their  positions  in  their 
respective  clauses.  The  example  is  interesting  as 
showing  the  power  of  the  secondary  element  to  modify 
very  decidedly  the  force  of  the  primary.  The  use  of 
the  conjunction  is  probably  significant  of  the  resulting 
vagueness. 

The  contrasted  element  is  sometimes  emphasized  by 
adverbs  like  certe,  quidem,  or  sane.  These  are  of 
comparatively  slight  importance  in  the  present  con- 
nection but  of  considerable  importance  later  on,  in  the 
study  of  the  means  by  which  contrast  is  anticipated. 
(Cf.  Chap.  VI,  p.  155.)  They  should  therefore  be  noted 
in  the  following  examples.    Cicero,  Ad  Att.  II.1.6 :  Hoc 


126  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

facer e  ilium  mihi  quam  prosit,  nescio;  rei  puhlicae 
certe  prodest.  Cicero,  In  Q.  Caec.  15.48:  qui  quid  in 
dicendo  posset,  numquam  satis  attendi,  in  clamando 
quidem  video  eum  esse  bene  rohustum.  Cicero,  Pro 
Rose.  Am.  19.54:  Vere  nihil  potes  dicere;  finge 
aliquid  saltem  commode.  The  adverbs  are  a  help  to 
the  understanding  of  the  relation  because  of  the  em- 
phasis which  they  bring  to  the  contrasted  element. 

There  are  a  number  of  words  whose  meaning  espe- 
cially adapts  them  for  use  in  instances  of  contrast. 
They  are  of  two  types :  first,  words  used  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  second  sentence  but  with  an  incompleteness 
of  content  and  a  meaning  suggestive  of  contrast,  such 
as  ceterus,  alius,  reliquus;  second,  adverbs,  not  an 
integral  part  of  the  second  sentence  or  clause,  but 
simply  inserted  to  mark  it  as  contrasted  with  the  first, 
adverbs  like  rursus,  contra,  ex  diverso.  The  first 
group  owe  their  power  to  suggest  contrast  to  that 
element  in  their  meaning  which  selects  one  unit  or 
group  of  units  and  definitely  distinguishes  it  from 
others.  Primarily  these  words  are  incomplete  in  mean- 
ing and  this  phase  of  their  influence  has  been  already 
discussed.  (Cf.  Chap.  IV,  p.  98.)  But  their  meaning 
makes  them  adaptable  to  this  particular  type  of  in- 
complete usage.  The  type  is  too  familiar  to  require 
more  than  a  passing  illustration.  Cicero,  Ad  Att. 
III.lO.l :  Acta  quae  essent  usque  ad  VIII  Kal.  lunias, 
cognovi  ex  tuis  litteris;  reliqua  exspectabam,  ut  tibi 
placebat,  Thessalonicae. 

This  is  not  the  only  use  of  these  words.  They  are 
comparative  in  sense  and  it  is  only  their  particular 


CHANGE  127 


meaning  which  makes  their  use  in  contrasts  common. 
The  development  of  the  conjunction  ceterum  to  mark 
a  sentence  or  clause  as  bearing  an  adversative  rela- 
tion to  the  one  preceding  it,  is  the  result  of  this  element 
of  meaning  in  the  adjective  ceterus. 

The  second  group  of  words  noted  above  is  like  the 
first  in  that  the  use  with  instances  of  abrupt  semantic 
change  is  not  their  only  one,  but  otherwise  they  are 
different.  Contra,  ex  diverse,  rursus,  and  similar  ex- 
pressions, when  used  as  adverbs  introducing  a  clause 
or  sentence  and  modifying  it  as  a  whole,  are  nothing 
more  than  indicators  of  relation  of  a  mechanical  sort. 
For  example,  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  29.79:  Qiios 
neque  ut  convenire  potuerit  neque  qua  ratione  .  .  . 
potes  ostendere.  Ego  contra  ostendo  non  modo  nihil 
eorum  fecisse  Sex.  Roscium,  etc.  The  marks  of  con- 
trast, the  functional  repetition  defined  by  semantic 
change,  do  not  really  need  the  contra  to  call  attention 
to  it.  This  adverbial  use  indicates  clearly  the  origin 
of  the  adversative  conjunctions  which  were  first  ad- 
verbs with  the  notion  of  ''apart"  or  "away  from." 

A  few  instances  of  semantic  change  in  which  adver- 
sative conjunctions  are  used  will  show  that  these,  like 
the  adverbs,  are  primarily  supplementary.  Sallust, 
Cat.  51.26:  Illis  merito  accidet  quicquid  evenerit: 
ceterum  vos,  patres  conscripti,  quid  in  alios  statuatis, 
considerate.  Pliny,  Epist.  IV.29.2 :  Egit  ille  in  senatu 
causam  suam,  egit  autem  sic  ut  deprecaretur.  This  is 
a  nice  case  of  functional  repetition  in  which  semantic 
change  is  present  but  inconspicuous  and  appearing  late 
in  the  sentence,  so  that  the  autem  is  a  distinct  help  to 


128  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

the  quick  understanding  of  the  relation.  Cicero,  Pro 
Rose.  Com.  10.28:  Panurgum  tu,  Saturi,  proprium 
Fanni  diets  fuisse.  At  ego  totum  Rosci  fuisse  eon- 
tendo.  Cicero,  In  Q.  Caee.  7.23:  reus  ut  absolvatur, 
non  peto,  sed  ut  potius  ah  hoe  quam  ah  illo  aceuse- 
tur,  id  peto.  Livy  XXXIV.7.4:  Sed  in  purpura,  quae 
teritur  ahsumitur,  .  .  .  aliquant  .  .  .  eausam  tenaeitatis 
video;  in  auro  vero,  in  quo  praeter  manupretium  nihil 
intertrimenti  fit,  quae  malignitas  est?  An  interesting 
instance  of  the  familiar  contrast  between  adverbs,  sup- 
plemented as  it  frequently  is,  by  the  emphasizing 
quidem  in  the  first  sentence  and  by  the  conjunction 
autem  in  the  second,  is  Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.4.14;  the 
first  sentence  begins  Ac  prime  quidem,  the  second  post 
autem.  The  contrast  between  demonstrative  pronouns 
is  supplemented  by  a  conjunction  in  Cicero,  Pro  Rose. 
Com.  1.1 :  Erit  in  illius  tahulis  hoc  nomen,  at  in  huius 
non  erit.  Finally,  Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp.  V.19.55,  illus- 
trates the  use  of  the  conjunction  to  supplement  con- 
trast between  names :  Laelius  si  digito  quern  attigisset, 
poenas  dedisset;  at  Cinna  collegae  sui,  consults  Cn. 
Octavii,  praecidi  caput  iussit. 

Two  adverbs  which,  in  this  particular  relation, 
become  practically  conjunctions,  should  be  included 
here.  The  first  is  nunc,  used  in  the  sentence  following 
a  condition  contrary  to  fact.  Tac.  Agr.  34.1 :  Si  novae 
gentes  atque  ignota  acies  constitisset,  aliorum  exerci- 
tuum  exemplis  vos  hortarer:  nunc  vestra  decora  re- 
censete,  vestros  oculos  interrogate.  The  aliorum  and 
the  vestra,  vestros  are  in  sharp  contrast,  but  there  is 
no  clause  balancing  the  si  .  .  .  constitisset  to  mark  the 


CHANGE  129 


coincidence  and  the  change.  This  balance  is  supplied 
by  the  nunc.  Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  14.47,  shows  that 
neither  is  necessary:  nihil  hoc  tanto  negotio,  nihil  tarn 
invidioso  iudicio,  nihil  tarn  copiosa  advocatione  uterer, 
si  petendum  esset;  extorquendum  est  invito  atque 
ingratiis. 

After  other  conditional  sentences  aliter  serves  the 
same  function  as  the  nunc  does  after  conditions  con- 
trary to  fact.  Tac.  Hist.  IV.59.16:  Classicus  corrup- 
tissimum  quemque  e  deditis  pergere  ad  obsessos  iubet, 
veniam  ostentantes,  si  praesentia  sequerentur ;  aliter 
nihil  spei,  famen  ferrumque  et  extrema  passuros.  The 
incomplete  adverb  merely  suggests  a  condition  in  con- 
trast to  the  one  actually  expressed  in  the  first  part  of 
the  sentence. 

The  type  of  relation  defined  by  all  the  examples  of 
semantic  change  is  the  same.  The  two  clauses  are  in 
contrast  with  each  other  and,  except  in  the  rarest 
instances,  coincident.  But  the  coincidence  is  deter- 
mined by  other  means.  Only  the  opposition  or  con- 
trast is  indicated  by  the  abrupt  change  of  meaning  and 
that  is  always  the  same  whether  supported  by  the  use 
of  conjunctions  or  not.  An  unusual  emphasis  on  one 
of  the  contrasted  sentences  may  lead  to  the  subordina- 
tion of  one  to  the  other  but  this  can  be  more  fully 
appreciated  after  a  study  of  the  means  by  which  con- 
trast is  anticipated. 

Early  in  the  present  chapter  (page  112)  it  was  stated 
that  the  range  of  relations  expressed  by  functional 
change  was  less  limited  than  the  range  of  those  ex- 


130  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

pressed  by  semantic  change.  At  first  glance  this  seems 
not  to  be  true.  It  is  even  doubted  whether  functional 
change  can  express  sentence  relations  at  all.^  This  is 
partly  the  result  of  a  confusion  of  two  different  ideas,^ 
one  the  shift  of  mode,  tense,  or  person  noted  by  Her- 
mann^ as  a  distinguishing  mark  of  subordination  and 
generally  so  accepted,  the  other  the  change  of  mode, 
tense,  or  person  from  the  verb  of  one  sentence  to  that 
of  another  contiguous  to  it.  The  former  is  the  assumed 
change  through  which  a  verb  form  passes  in  its  tran- 
sition from  an  independent  to  a  dependent  use,  a 
change  in  the  individual  form  itself.  The  latter  is 
analogous  in  kind  to  the  repetition  of  function  already 
noted ;  it  is  a  phenomenon  embracing  two  verbs  in  two 
different  clauses.  Another  source  of  confusion  lies 
in  the  fact  that,  like  so  many  of  the  means  uncon- 
sciously employed  by  language,  this  element  of  func- 
tional change  is  almost  inextricably  united  with  other 
elements  contributing  to  the  same  end.  Finally,  it 
should  be  added  that,  although  change  of  function 
expresses  more  different  sorts  of  relation,  it  expresses 
none  with  the  same  precision  that  characterizes  se- 
mantic change. 

Change  of  person  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  a 
functional  change.  Eather,  it  is  one  of  subject  only 
and  as  such  is  essentially  semantic.  It  is  impossible 
to  conceive  of  person  in  a  verb  apart  from  a  concrete 

1  Miss  Nye:  Sentence  Connection,  pp.  26  ff. 

2  This  confusion  is  my  own.  See :  Sentence  Connection  in  Tacitus, 
pp.  136  f. 

3  See:  Hermann:  Gab  es  im  Indogermanischen  Nehensdtse;  K.  Z.  33, 
pp.  481  ff. 


CHANGE  131 


subject,  whether  specific  or  general.  So,  whether  there 
be  repetition  or  change  of  person,  it  is  inevitably  the 
subject  of  the  verb  which  the  mind  conceives  as  either 
repeated  or  changed.  The  result  is  that  the  principles 
already  noted  in  the  study  of  semantic  change  apply 
absolutely  to  change  of  person :  ordinarily  it  will  have 
no  appreciable  effect  because  it  is  the  normally 
expected  thing;  but  when  the  change  is  deliberately 
made  obvious,  in  other  words,  when  it  is  so  striking 
that  the  two  subjects  are  thrown  into  sharp  opposition, 
the  result  is  a  contrast  between  them,  suggesting  at 
once  an  adversative  relation  between  the  sentences. 
The  development  in  Romance  languages  of  pronouns 
regularly  to  make  clear  the  person  and  to  take  over  a 
part  of  the  function  of  the  verb,  is  an  indication  of  the 
semantic  character  of  this  element  of  function.  In 
Latin  it  was  usually  necessary  to  employ  the  pronoun 
to  make  contrast  obvious  and  efficient.  This  is  illus- 
trated in  the  following  examples.  Cicero,  De  Imp.  Cn. 
Pomp.  5.11:  Illi  libertatem  inminutam  civium  Roma- 
norum  non  tulerunt;  vos  ereptam  vitam  neglegetisf 
Seneca,  Troades  fil^ :  unum  quaeris,  ego  quaero  omnia. 
Pliny,  Epist.  IV.14.9 :  Proinde,  sive  epigrammata  .  .  . 
seu  quod  aliud  vocare  malueris  licehit  voces,  ego  tan- 
tum  hendecasyllahos  praesto.  Compare  an  instance 
supported  by  the  supplementary  force  of  a  conjunction : 
Pliny,  Epist.  1.5.7 :  Quaeris  .  .  .  quid  sentiam;  at  ego 
ne  interrogare  qiiidem  fas  puto,  de  quo  pronuntiatum 
est. 

While  change  of  person  is  essentially  a  semantic 
change  and  therefore  confined  in  range  to  the  one  rela- 


132  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tion  expressed  by  semantic  change,  change  of  tense  is 
different  in  character  and  has  a  wider  range.  It  may 
be,  and  often  is,  deliberately  made  obvious  and  empha- 
sized in  such  a  way  as  to  produce  the  same  result  as 
that  attained  by  emphatic  semantic  change,  but  it  is 
also  effective  in  its  less  striking  forms  to  express  less 
clearly  defined  relations.  The  first  of  these  two  uses  is 
distinctly  rare  and  usually,  if  not  always,  supported 
by  further  means.  Illustrations  are  the  following: 
Pliny,  Epist.  IV.12.1:  Amas  Egnatium  Marcellinum 
atqiie  etiam  mihi  saepe  commendas:  amahis  magis 
commendabisque,  si  cognoveris  eius  recens  factum. 
Martial  V.9.4 :  Non  hahui  fehrem,  Symmache,  nunc 
haheo.  Seneca,  De  Ira,  1.5.1 :  Quid  esset  ira  quaesitum 
est  .  .  .  ;  nunc  quaeramus  an  ira  secundum  naturam  sit. 
A  further  step  is  taken  when  a  conjunction  is  used 
with  the  first  clause :  Cicero,  De  Imp.  Cn.  Pomp.  8.20 : 
Quoniam  de  genere  belli  dixi,  nunc  de  magnitudine 
pauca  dicam.  Although  rare  in  occurrence  this  type  is 
easily  understood  after  a  study  of  the  other  changes 
which  produce  contrast. 

The  chief  field  of  influence  for  change  of  tense  lies 
in  the  direction  of  less  specific  and  clearly  defined 
usage.  The  most  obvious  and  frequently  recurring 
change  is  from  a  narrative  past  tense  to  a  pluperfect 
or  the  reverse.  This  change  has  a  distinct  influence  in 
determining  the  relation  between  the  sentences,  origi- 
nating in  the  incomplete  nature  of  the  pluperfect 
already  noted.  (Cf.  Chap.  IV,  p.  108.)  That  incom- 
pleteness marks  the  clause  in  which  the  pluperfect 
stands  as  antecedent  to  the  other.    Tac.  Hist.  III.84.27 : 


CHANGE  133 


Laniata  veste,  foedum  spectaculum,  ducebatur,  multis 
increpantihus,  nullo  inlacrimante:  deformitas  exitus 
mis  eric  ordiam  ahstulerat.  The  summary  repetition  in 
deformitas  exitus  at  once  suggests  a  sentence  logically 
subsequent  to  the  preceding  and  only  the  tense  change 
in  ahstulerat  corrects  this  impression.  The  resultant 
double  impression  is  characteristic  of  almost  all  ex- 
planatory sentences.  They  are  very  often  somewhat  in 
the  nature  of  afterthoughts;  or  else  they  are  deliber- 
ately and  for  rhetorical  effect  kept  back  until  after  the 
clause  of  which  they  are  the  explanation.  But  logically 
they  are  antecedent  to  the  other  clause  and  this  fact  is 
brought  out  by  the  tense  change.  In  the  present 
instance,  had  there  been  a  narrative  tense  in  the  place 
of  the  pluperfect,  its  clause  would  have  been  without 
ambiguity  subsequent  logically  to  the  first  clause  and 
the  sense  would  have  been  totally  different.  Had  the 
first  verb,  on  the  other  hand,  been  a  pluperfect,  there 
would  have  been  a  strong  tendency  to  take  the  two 
clauses  as  coincident,  which  would  hardly  have  been 
overshadowed  by  the  force  of  the  incompleteness  of 
the  tense  in  ahstulerat^ 

Tac.  Ann.  XV.16.16:  Decesserat  certamen  virtutis  et 
amhitio  gloriae,  felicium  hominum  adfectus:  sola 
misericordia  valehat,  et  apud  minores  magis.  Caesar, 
Bell.  Civ.  II.4.4:  Adventus  enim  L.  Nasidii  summa  spe 

1  Miss  Nye  (Sentence  Connection,  p.  26)  expresses  a  different  view. 
Such  an  instance  as  the  following  seems  to  me  to  show  that  it  is  the 
change  of  tense  and  not  merely  the  incompleteness  of  the  pluperfect 
which  defines  relation:  Pliny,  Epist.  VI. 20.11:  Nee  multo  post  ilia 
nubes  descender e  in  terras,  operire  maria;  cinxerat  Capreas  et  abscon- 
derat ;  Miseni  quod  procurrit,  ahstulerat. 


134  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

et  voluntate  civitatem  compleverat.  Nacti  idoneum 
ventum  ex  portu  exeunt.  The  fact  that  the  change  of 
tense  is,  in  these  examples,  accomplished  in  the  reverse 
order,  does  not  alter  the  significance:  the  clause  with 
the  pluperfect  tense  is  antecedent  to  the  other.  This 
is  the  relation  even  when  the  clause  with  the  narrative 
tense  is  made  syntactically  subordinate,  as  it  frequently 
is.  For  example,  Vixdum  finierat  Maternus  concitatus 
et  velut  instinctus,  cum  Vipstanus  Messalla  cubiculum 
ingressus  est.  (Tac.  Z>iaZ.  14.1.)  The  difference  is  that, 
in  this  last  type,  the  emphasis  is  on  temporal  rather 
than  causal  relation.  The  temporal  idea  is  often  so 
clear  in  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  the  first  clause 
that  the  use  of  the  conjunction  et  instead  of  cum  does 
not  change  the  effect:  e.g.,  Vergil,  Aen.  3.9:  vix  prima 
inceperat  aestas,  Et  pater  Anchises  dare  fatis  vela 
iubebat.  If  the  element  of  contrast  enters  in,  usually 
marked  by  the  use  of  a  conjunction,  since  otherwise  it 
is  not  obvious,  the  emphasis  is  again  changed,  but 
without  changing  the  fundamental  relation :  Tac.  Ann. 
1.56.18:  Fuerat  animus  Cheruscis  iuvare  Chattos,  sed 
exterruit  Caecina  hue  illuc  ferens  arma.  That  the 
causal  relation,  first  noted,  is  often  marked  by  a  con- 
junction too,  has  been  already  illustrated  (Chap.  V, 
p.  108)  in  discussing  the  incompleteness  of  the  plu- 
perfect. When  the  pluperfect  clause  comes  first  the 
conjunction  igitur  in  the  second  clause  performs  this 
function:  Tac.  Hist.  III.69.1:  Praevenerat  rumor 
eiurari  ah  eo  imperium,  scripseratque  Flavius  Sahinus 
cohortium  trihunis,  ut  militem  cohiberent.  Igitur  .  .  . 
primores  senatus  . . .  domum  Flavii  Sabini  complevere. 


CHANGE  135 


When  the  clauses  come  in  the  reverse  order,  nam,  enim 
and  quippe  are  the  usual  conjunctions  with  the  plu- 
perfect. Suet.  Galba  9 :  Nee  diu  cunctatus,  conditionem 
partim  metu,  partim  spe,  recepit;  nam  .  .  .  mandata 
Neronis  de  nece  sua  ad  procuratores  clam  missa 
deprehenderat. 

In  a  rather  general  and  undefined  way,  this  explana- 
tory force  seems  to  lie  behind  all  changes  from  one 
tense  to  another  indicating  priority  in  time.  If  the 
tense  changes  in  consecutive  discourse  from  a  future 
to  a  present  or  past  or  from  a  present  to  a  past,  it  indi- 
cates a  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  writer  to  guide  the 
mind  of  the  reader  back  to  a  point  logically  antecedent 
to  the  one  already  stated.  For  example,  Sallust,  Cat. 
52 A :  hoc,  nisi  provideris  ne  accidat,  uhi  evenit,  frustra 
iudicia  implores:  capta  urhe  nihil  fit  reliqui  victis.  The 
repetition  of  content  in  the  second  sentence  is  undeni- 
able, but  the  change  in  tense  defines  the  relation  as 
explanatory.  Again  and  again  in  Cato  practical  in- 
structions are  given  in  the  imperative,  which  has 
necessarily  a  future  sense,  followed  by  a  statement  in 
the  present  tense  containing  an  explanation  of  the 
reason  for  the  rule  laid  down.  R.R.  LXIII.  is  typical 
of  these  instances;  Per  aestatem  boves  aquam  honam 
et  liquidam  hihant  semper  curato:  ut  valeant  refert. 
The  following  examples  show  the  change  from  a  pres- 
ent or  a  future  to  a  past  tense  with  the  same  resultant 
effect.  Sallust,  Cat.  58.15:  Si  haec  relinquere  voltis, 
audacia  opus  est:  nemo  nisi  victor  pace  helium  mutavit. 
Seneca,  Troades  886:  Hie  forsitan  te  casus  excelso 
magis  Solio  reponet.    Profuit  multis  capi.    This  usage 


136  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

was  never  sufficiently  common  to  develop  any  clearly 
defined  function  as  a  means  of  expressing  sentence 
relation.  But  it  was  obvious  enough  to  be  made  use  of 
effectively  by  the  rhetorical  writers  of  Silver  Latin, 
while  its  prosaic  use  goes  back  to  the  unadorned  style 
of  Cato.  Not  infrequently  it  is  supplemented  by  con- 
junctions, as  in  the  following  examples.  Cicero,  De 
Orat.  1.1.4:  Tibi  vero,  f rater,  neque  hortanti  deero 
neque  roganti.  Nam  neque  auctoritate  quisquam  apud 
me  plus  valere  te  potest  neque  voluntate.  Cato,  R.R. 
CXLl :  Si  habebit  aquam,  vinum  effluet,  aqua  manebit. 
Nam  non  continet  vinum  vas  hederaceum. 

In  the  instances  which  fall  under  the  present  cate- 
gory just  as  in  those  which  illustrated  the  change  from 
a  narrative  tense  to  the  pluperfect,  it  proves  true  that 
a  reversal  of  the  order  of  clauses  does  not  change  the 
relation  of  the  clauses  to  each  other.  The  clause  whose 
verb  shows  priority  of  tense  is  still  the  explanatory  or 
causal  clause,  the  other  the  resultant.  There  is  a  dif- 
ference in  the  placing  of  the  emphasis  but  not  in  the 
essential  relation  between  clauses.  There  is  not  neces- 
sarily any  anticipation  of  relation  as  there  always  is 
with  the  pluperfect  clauses  when  they  precede  the 
clauses  which  they  explain,  for  that  anticipation  re- 
sulted from  the  inherent  incompleteness  of  the  par- 
ticular tense.  Otherwise  there  is  nothing  new  in  the 
present  type.  Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  18.58:  Profectus 
est  una  L.  Albius  homo  cum  primis  honestus;  dicet 
testimonium.  It  is  true  that  the  tacit  repetition  of 
Albius  as  subject  of  dicet  suggests  the  subsequence  of 
the  second  clause,  but  it  has  already  been  shown  that 


CHANGE  137 


change  of  tense  may  overshadow  that  suggestion, 
especially  as  repetition  of  subject  is  one  of  the  least 
forcible  types  of  repetition.  In  the  present  type, 
inasmuch  as  the  two  elements  are  supplementary,  there 
is  no  avoidance  of  the  explicit  repetition  of  content. 
The  citation  above  continues :  Prosecuti  sunt  fami- 
liares  et  Alhium  et  Quinctium;  dicent  hi  quoque  testi- 
monium. The  tacit  repetition  of  a  noun  as  subject  of 
the  second  verb  is  the  rule.  Cicero,  In  Verrem  1.10,30 : 
Tres  hi  homines  veteres  tribuni  militares  sunt  desig- 
nati;  ex  Kal.  lanuar.  non  iudicahunt.  Tac.  Hist. 
V.23.1 :  Civilem  cupido  incessit  navalem  aciem  osten- 
tandi:  complet  quod  biremium  quaeque  simplice  ordine 
agebantur.  That  such  repetition  is  not  essential  is 
shown  by  such  instances  as  Tac.  Hist.  111.29.12 :  ceteri 
trepidis  iam  Vitellianis  seque  e  vallo  praecipitantibus 
perrupere.  Completur  caede  quantum  inter  castra 
murosque  vacui  fuit.  The  present  tense  of  complet 
after  the  perfect  incessit  is  not  really  needed  to  point 
the  relation  which  is  obvious  from  the  course  of  events, 
so  that  it  is  ordinarily  called  a  present  of  excited  narra- 
tive. But  its  selection  at  this  particular  point  was 
surely  determined  by  a  desire  to  point  more  vividly  the 
resultant  nature  of  the  second  sentence.  The  device 
is  made  very  familiar  by  Tacitus'  use  of  it,  nor  is  its 
force  called  into  question  by  the  numerous  instances 
like  intravi,  conticuerunt  of  Pliny,  Epist.  II.18.2,  in 
which  the  natural  sequence  of  events  is  left  to  convey 
unaided  the  same  relation.  If  a  conjunction  is  used  to 
make  the  relation  more  obvious  it  is  regularly  of  the 


138  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

igitur  type,  as  in  Tac.  Ann.  II.68.7 :  neque  vado  pene- 
trari  poterat.    Igitur  in  ripa  fluminis  .  .  .  vincitur. 

The  sum  total  of  evidence  for  the  use  of  this  means 
of  expressing  sentence  relation  indicates  a  type  not 
sufficiently  distinctive  to  be  used  extensively  without 
being  supported  by  further  means  of  connection.  The 
case  is  somewhat  different  with  change  of  mood.  The 
material  to  examine  is  ample,  and  there  are  obvious 
subordinate  constructions  based  on  this  particular 
type  of  change.  It  seems  to  lie  at  the  foundation  of 
many  of  the  regular  subordinate  clauses,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, the  ut  clauses  and  those  in  indirect  discourse. 
It  is  the  type  of  sentence  connection  usually  referred 
to  as  parataxis:  concedas  necesse  est.  (Cicero,  Pro 
Rose.  Am.  31.87.)  Such  instances  are  too  familiar  to 
require  illustration  here.  Because  they  have  been  con- 
sidered, on  the  one  hand,  as  examples  of  parataxis  in 
its  narrowest  sense,  examples  of  subordination  without 
any  expressed  sign,  and  on  the  other  hand,  as  examples 
of  clauses  between  which  there  is  a  conjunction  omitted 
and  understood,  they  have  been  the  subject  of  extensive 
study.^  They  must,  however,  be  considered  not  as  an 
isolated  type,  but  in  relation  to  other  similar  changes, 
for  the  change  is  not  confined  to  that  from  a  subjunc- 
tive to  an  indicative  and  vice  versa:  Ite,  Obsecror  is 
quite  as  significant. 

The  infinitive  is  so  essentially  a  noun  that  its  rela- 
tions to  an  adjacent  finite  verb  assume  the  relation  of 
noun  to  verb  and  the  Latin  infinitive  never  developed 
the  various  forms  of  subordinate  clause  that  are  to  be 

1  For  a  partial  list  of  the  literature  see  Morris,  p.  113. 


CHANGE  139 


found  in  the  case  of  the  subjunctive.  The  change  from 
indicative  to  infinitive  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  a  con- 
crete sign  of  indirect  quotation,  and  in  this  one  type, 
I  should  say,  is  an  efficient  means  of  expressing  the 
relation.  But  this  is  distinctly  a  relation  of  noun  to 
verb  rather  than  of  verb  to  verb.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  other  infinitive  uses.  Whether  an  infinitive  is  com- 
plementary or  expresses  indirect  discourse  is  entirely 
a  question  of  the  meaning  of  the  finite  verb.  The 
infinitive  simply  follows  this  verb  in  the  relation  that  a 
noun  would  bear  to  it,  the  precise  relation  being  defined 
not  by  the  infinitive  but  by  the  finite  verb. 

This  last  factor  enters  very  largely  into  the  deter- 
mination of  the  extent  to  which  a  simple  change  from 
indicative  to  subjunctive  can  be  efficient  to  express 
relation  without  further  means.  Just  so  long  as  the 
finite  verb  has  in  it  the  notion  of  volition,  expressed 
as  wish,  or  request,  or  order,  or  even  as  the  statement 
of  necessity  or  need  (which  implies  the  volition  of 
some  compelling  force),  so  long  can  the  change  be 
effective  to  produce  the  sense  of  relation.  For  the 
subjunctive  by  itself  expresses  volition,  ranging  from 
the  mildest  request  to  a  real  command.  It  is  essen- 
tially imperative  in  sense.  With  the  ordering  type  of 
verb,  therefore,  the  relation  is  obvious,  especially  aided 
as  it  usually  is  by  change  of  person ;  volo  adsis.  When 
the  finite  verb  was  outside  this  category,  that  is,  when 
the  natural  field  of  usage  became  extended,  there  was 
felt  the  need  of  supplementary  mechanical  means  to 
make  perfectly  clear  the  relation  of  the  subjunctive 
to  the  indicative.     There  developed  the  use  of  the 


140  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

defining  conjunction.  In  the  chapter  on  Parenthetical 
Incompleteness  the  development  of  this  usage  will  be 
discussed.  At  present  all  that  need  be  noted  is  that 
the  change  from  one  mode  to  another  is  in  itself  not 
definite  enough  to  express  a  precise  sentence  relation 
except  under  special  circumstances.  The  same  con- 
clusion is  fair  for  functional  change  in  general.  It 
is  not  an  effective  element  for  the  accurate  expression 
of  sentence  relations.  Its  range  was  less  circum- 
scribed than  that  of  semantic  change,  but,  without 
other  more  precise  means  of  supporting  it,  it  never 
developed  general  efficiency. 


CHAPTER  VI 
ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS 

The  long  and  rather  obvious  list  of  words  and  func- 
tions with  an  element  of  relativity,  given  in  Chapter 
IV,  is  of  importance  almost  solely  for  the  sake  of 
making  clear  a  principle  whose  chief  application  lies 
in  another  direction.  In  the  majority  of  instances 
cited,  the  element  of  incompleteness  served  hardly  any 
further  use  than  to  draw  attention  to  the  fact  that 
there  was  a  relation  existing  between  two  sentences 
or  clauses.  It  rarely  defined  that  relation  with  any 
precision;  that  was  done  in  most  cases  by  further 
means  employed.  And  when  the  relation  is  expressed 
in  the  second  of  two  clauses  the  element  of  incomplete- 
ness is  scarcely  necessary,  so  instinctively  do  we 
assume  relation  between  contiguous  sentences. 

But  there  is  a  wider  field  for  the  principle  of  incom- 
pleteness. Repetition,  by  its  very  nature,  could  be  of 
use  only  in  the  second  clause :  incompleteness  may  be 
satisfied  either  by  what  has  preceded  or  by  what  fol- 
lows and  can  therefore  exert  its  influence  in  either  the 
first  or  the  second  sentence  or  clause.  Hence  it  is  the 
principle  behind  all  forms  of  anticipatory  connection. 
This  is  of  great  importance,  for  the  practical  value  of 
an  appreciation  of  the  forms  of  sentence  connection 
lies  in  the  increased  ability  to  grasp  quickly  and  fully 


142  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

the  thought  of  any  writer.  This  is  somewhat  furthered 
by  an  understanding  of  the  retrospective  means 
already  studied.  But  if  we  can  understand  the  various 
means  developed  for  giving  warning  in  the  first  sen- 
tence of  the  relation  it  is  to  bear  to  the  second,  our 
grasp  of  the  writer's  thought  will  be  much  quicker. 
To  use  once  more  the  analogy  of  words  and  the  sen- 
tence which  they  combine  to  form,  each  sentence  will 
then  suggest  at  once  to  the  mind  one  or  more  possible 
relations  which  it  may  bear  to  the  sentence  following, 
and  the  means  of  connection  expressed  in  this  follow- 
ing sentence  will  determine  for  us  more  precisely 
which  it  is;  just  as  each  word  that  we  read  in  a  sen- 
tence not  only  expresses  a  relation  to  what  has  pre- 
ceded, but,  by  its  meaning  or  function,  suggests  one 
or  more  possible  relations  with  the  words  to  come, 
the  right  one  being  determined  by  the  words  that 
follow. 

The  principle  is  presumably  clear  already.  If  we 
read  the  sentence,  haec  verba  dixit,  there  is  a  logical 
incompleteness  due  to  the  emptiness  of  meaning  of 
haec.  If  any  ''words"  have  been  spoken,  the  mind 
instinctively  refers  to  them  the  haec  verba  and  the 
incompleteness  is  satisfied.  But  suppose  there  has 
been  no  quotation  of  anything  said.  The  relativity 
still  exists  and  the  mind  instinctively  suspends  judg- 
ment until  a  quotation  following  gives  content  to  haec. 
In  other  words,  the  demonstrative  pronoun,  being  in 
itself  an  empty  word  and  so  making  its  sentence  or 
clause  logically  incomplete,  forces  the  mind  to  look 
outside  the  sentence  or  clause  to  complete  the  sense. 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  143 

If  this  can  be  done  by  retrospection  it  is  so  done 
instinctively;  if  not,  judgment  must  be  suspended  and 
an  anticipatory  means  of  expressing  sentence  relation 
has  been  established. 

It  is  apparent  that  this  usage,  anticipation  of  the 
connection,  is  largely  rhetorical.  Although  the  idea  to 
follow  the  particular  one  that  is  being  expressed  is 
regularly  present  in  the  speaker's  mind  in  a  somewhat 
vague  form,  still  the  deliberate  preparation  for  it  in 
the  framing  of  the  sentence  actually  being  spoken  is  in 
itself  rhetorical :  it  is  neither  simple  nor  entirely  nat- 
ural. But,  as  has  been  already  noted,  Latin  prose  as 
we  have  it  is  not  simple  and  natural  but  complex  and 
rhetorical,  and  it  is  therefore  just  as  important  to 
study  the  rhetorical  development  of  a  simple  princi- 
ple as  to  note  its  more  natural  applications.  In  fact, 
such  developments  require  more  study  and  often  lead 
to  more  definite  results.  Furthermore,  the  rhetorical 
nature  of  a  usage  is  only  a  matter  of  degree.  Every 
development  in  language  as  a  means  of  expressing 
ideas  is  the  result  of  intelligence,  either  conscious  or 
unconscious. 

Most  of  the  types  that  showed  the  element  of  incom- 
pleteness with  retrospective  force  appear  also  with 
anticipatory  force.  In  the  use  of  conjunctions  and 
demonstrative  pronouns  and  also  in  that  of  the  sub- 
junctive mode  this  has  been  already  partially  illus- 
trated (pp.  89,  33,  106),  and  a  few  instances  will 
suffice  to  make  it  clear.  With  the  so-called  subordinat- 
ing conjunctions  this  anticipatory  element  is  so  obvious 
that  there  is  danger  of  forgetting  its  character.    Cum 


144  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

esset  Caesar  in  citeriore  Gallia,  does  not  make  com- 
plete sense.  To  such  an  extent  is  this  true  that  we  call 
the  clause  subordinate.  It  is  not  the  use  of  the  sub- 
junctive that  gives  the  incompleteness  to  the  clause: 
Cicero  begins  his  oration  for  Flaccus,  Cum  in  maximis 
periculis  huius  urhis  .  .  .  caedem  a  vohis  .  .  .  depel- 
lebam.  In  neither  of  these  cases  can  the  cum  clause 
refer  to  anything  preceding,  for  there  is  nothing  pre- 
ceding; the  incompleteness  in  each  case  must  be  satis- 
fied by  what  follows,  and  so  familiar  is  the  usage  that 
the  mind  is  already  prepared  for  the  exact  type  of 
relation  before  the  next  clause  is  reached. 

In  actual  use,  comparatively  few  of  the  non-subor- 
dinating conjunctions  have  anticipatory  force.  Enim, 
tamen,  ergo,  and  their  like  have  the  force  of  incom- 
pleteness but  it  is  retrospective ;  the  same  is  true  to 
a  considerable  extent  of  et,  neque,  and  aut.  But  these 
are  not  confined  to  the  retrospective  use.  Livy  XXIII. 
41.3 :  nam  et  filius  Hampsicorae  Hostus  in  acie  cecidit; 
without  the  et  this  would  be  a  logically  complete  sen- 
tence with  no  notion  of  reference  to  another.  With 
the  et  this  is  changed :  et  is  incomplete  and  renders  the 
sentence  incomplete.  Furthermore,  it  can  refer  to 
nothing  preceding  and  therefore  attains  more  than  a 
mere  connective  force:  it  anticipates  the  relation  with 
the  following  clause.  This  is  a  good  illustration  be- 
cause the  retrospective  element  in  the  second  sentence 
is  strong  and  clear :  et  Hampsicora  cum  paucis  equiti- 
hus  fugiens  .  .  .  mortem  sihi  conscivit.  The  incom- 
plete word  et,  at  the  beginning  might  be  satisfied  by 
repetition  of  either  content  or  function   as   already 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  145 

indicated,  but  repeating,  as  it  does,  the  et  of  the  first 
sentence,  it  establishes  functional  repetition  and  at 
once  indicates  a  parallelism  of  sentences.  The  repeti- 
tion of  content  in  Hampsicora  might  at  first  be  mis- 
leading, but  the  repetition  of  order  throughout  and  of 
function  in  conscivit,  adequately  confirm  the  parallel- 
ism with  the  preceding  clause ;  but  the  et  in  that  clause 
had  already  suggested  such  parallelism  to  follow. 

For  the  incompleteness  of  et  in  anticipatory  usage 
is  the  same  that  it  had  in  the  retrospective.  It  had 
there  the  force  of  an  adverb  meaning  ''moreover"  or 
"besides."  Now  this  had  two  possible  uses  when 
employed  in  the  second  sentence :  it  might  mark  either 
a  subsequent  or  a  coincident  sentence.  Its  transfer- 
ence to  the  first  sentence  is  rhetorical  and  in  such  use 
it  is  confined  to  the  second  type ;  it  gives  warning  that 
the  sentence  in  which  it  stands  is  coincident  with  the 
one  to  follow.  By  its  meaning  it  further  defines  the 
relation  as  one  of  parallelism  rather  than  of  contrast. 

This  example  will  be  sufficient  to  illustrate  the  force 
of  the  correlative  pairs.  In  some  cases,  such  as  cum 
.  .  .  turn,  the  differentiation  of  relative  from  demon- 
strative led  to  the  development  of  a  subordinating 
conjunction,  and  to  a  distinct  type  of  sentence  rela- 
tion. In  others,  such  as  alius  .  .  .  alius,  the  source 
of  the  incompleteness  will  be  found  to  be  rather  differ- 
ent and  the  resulting  type  of  relation  different,  too. 
But  these  differences  are  minor  and  result  from  the 
meanings  of  the  words  themselves.  The  fundamental 
principle  is  the  same. 

The  anticipatory  use  of  the  demonstrative  has  been 


146  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 


rather  fully  discussed  already  (cf.  pp.  19  and  33). 
This  is  the  only  type  of  anticipation  which  Cato  uses 
at  all  extensively  and  this  fact  alone  distinguishes  it 
as  the  simplest  form.  Cato,  R.R.  LXXXVIII.2:  Id 
signi  erit:  menam  aridam  vel  ovum  demittito:  si  nata- 
hit,  ea  muries  erit.  Cato,  R.R.  XXIV.l :  Vinum  Grae- 
cum  hoc  modo  fieri  oportet.  Uvas  apicias  percoctas 
bene  legito.  Cato,  R.R.  V.7:  Nam  res  rustica  sic  est, 
si  unam  rem  sero  feceris,  omnia  opera  sero  fades. 
Caesar  makes  some  use  of  the  anticipatory  demon- 
strative, Cicero  more  and  Tacitus  uses  it  very  freely 
indeed.  One  more  illustration  will  suffice.  Tac.  Ann. 
VI.50.6 :  Illic  eum,  adpropinquare  supremis  tali  modo 
compertum.  Erat  medicus  arte  insignis,  nomine 
Charicles,  etc. 

There  is  a  sharp  distinction  to  be  noted  here  between 
the  nature  of  the  incompleteness  to  be  found  in  the 
demonstrative  and  that  in  the  conjunction.  It  is  the 
same  difference  that  marked  their  retrospective  uses. 
The  demonstrative  is  an  empty  word  representing 
some  concept,  either  simple,  a  single  person  or  thing, 
or  complex,  a  whole  clause  or  several  clauses.  As 
regularly  used,  therefore,  it  simply  stands  for  that  con- 
cept and  when  employed  in  an  anticipatory  usage,  it 
can  imply  only  the  verbal  statement  of  that  concept  to 
give  it  content.  The  statement  of  that  concept  will 
therefore  be,  syntactically  speaking,  in  apposition  with 
the  demonstrative.  The  conjunction,  on  the  other 
hand,  modifies  the  whole  phrase  in  which  it  stands  and 
renders  it  incomplete,  but  it  does  not  stand  for  any 
concept  outside  its  clause  to  which  it  points.     It  is 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  147 

therefore  able  to  suggest  a  greater  variety  of  relations 
between  its  clause  and  the  one  preceding  or  following 
as  the  case  may  be. 

It  is  especially  interesting  that  some  of  the  conjunc- 
tions have  developed  such  specialized  uses  that  they 
can  no  longer  stand  in  a  syntactically  independent 
clause ;  in  other  words,  that  in  the  development  of  the 
language,  their  incompleteness  became  so  emphasized 
that  their  clauses  became  syntactically  dependent  as 
well  as  logically  incomplete.  Also  that  this  same  pro- 
cess was  at  work,  as  has  been  seen  (Chap.  Ill,  p.  34), 
in  the  field  of  pronoun  usage,  differentiating  the  rela- 
tive from  the  demonstrative.  In  this  field  it  was  never 
completed.  Quae  statim  fecerunt  is  essentially  the 
same  as  Jiaec  statim  fecerunt,  save  as  we  read  into  the 
quae  a  certain  notion  of  dependence  by  analogy  with 
its  more  specialized  uses.  So  long  as  its  antecedent  is 
outside  itself,  it  is  practically  the  equivalent  of  the 
demonstrative.  But  it  developed  a  use  in  which  it  com- 
prised its  antecedent  within  itself  and  became  analo- 
gous to  the  conjunctions  which  we  call  subordinating. 
Qui  moriuntur  mortales  sunt,  shows  the  same  intensi- 
fied anticipation  that  si  moriuntur  mortales  sunt, 
would  show. 

Now  the  same  development  is  to  be  seen  in  the  use 
of  comparative  adjectives  when  they  appear  in  the 
anticipatory  usage.  Fortior  erat  Caesar,  is  syntacti- 
cally complete.  Logically,  it  might  be  completed  by 
the  preceding  sentence,  or  if  there  were  none,  it  could 
conceivably  anticipate  some  such  contrast  as  sapientior 
erat  Cicero.     But  the  ordinary  contrast  implied  is 


148  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

minus  fortis  erat  Cicero,  and  another  construction 
more  convenient  and  more  common  by  far  when  once 
developed,  grew  up  to  express  this  relation,  the  con- 
struction with  the  adverb  quam:  Fortior  erat  Caesar 
quam  Cicero  (sc.  erat).  The  principle  is  unchanged: 
the  incompleteness  of  the  comparative  causes  suspen- 
sion of  judgment  and  in  this  case  at  least  two  possibili- 
ties are  instinctively  borne  in  mind  until  the  following 
clause  determines  between  them.  It  is  the  functional 
repetition  which  really  defines  the  relation.  The  quam 
is  the  remnant  of  a  correlative  pair. 

The  comparative  adverbs  and  verbs  are  similar  to 
comparative  adjectives  in  their  anticipatory  uses. 
With  the  other  verbs  of  incomplete  meaning  the  case 
is  a  little  different.  The  meaning  of  the  verb  plays 
the  important  part.  Sequor  could  scarcely  have  an 
anticipatory  force  nor  respondeo,  in  so  far  as  the  force 
of  the  re-  is  considered,  and  the  same  is  at  least  par- 
tially true  of  the  verbs  compounded  with  prepositions. 
It  is  conceivable  that,  for  the  rhetorical  effect  of  sus- 
pense, a  writer  might  use  such  an  expression  as  this: 
Circumsteterunt  milites:  imperator  in  medio  erat. 
But,  so  far  as  any  ordinary  narrative  is  concerned, 
such  verbs  are  essentially  retrospective. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  verbs  which  apparently 
are  essentially  anticipatory  in  their  incompleteness, 
again  because  of  their  meaning.  But  caution  is  neces- 
sary in  these  cases.  Volo,  dico,  puto,  and  the  like, 
seem  at  first  glance  to  come  under  such  a  category. 
Examination,  however,  shows  that  they  do  not.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  incompleteness  of  these  verbs  is 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  149 

not  different  from  that  of  any  verb  which  cannot  be 
used  absolutely.  Frango,  pello,  or  video  have  the  same 
degree  of  incompleteness,  but  it  is  not  such  in  any  of 
these  instances,  whether  of  verbs  of  saying  or  of 
action,  as  to  give  incompleteness  to  the  whole  clause. 
It  does  anticipate  an  object,  that  is,  a  further  word  or 
words  in  the  same  clause  in  a  certain  relation  to  itself. 
But  beyond  that  it  does  not  go.  In  the  place  of  the 
object  noun  may  be  an  infinitive,  but  the  infinitive  is 
nothing  more  than  the  name  of  the  verbal  action  and, 
in  reality,  a  noun. 

Once  more  it  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  which  is  the 
determining  factor:  the  verbs  of  physical  action  must 
have  a  concrete  object,  those  of  mental  action  may  be 
followed  instead  by  the  infinitive  clause,  an  intangible 
object.  Video,  with  both  a  literal,  physical  meaning 
and  one  figurative  and  mental,  illustrates  this  distinc- 
tion well.  And  to  this  extent  there  is  a  difference  in 
the  incompleteness  of  the  two  sorts  of  verb.  For  the 
infinitive  clause  is  subject  to  so  much  expansion  and 
variation  as  to  be  scarcely  recognizable  as  the  object 
of  the  verb.  Standing  for  direct  narrative,  it  is  often 
carried  to  great  length  and  has  within  itself  all  the 
types  of  sentence  connection  studied. 

In  all  these  verbs,  then,  of  saying  or  thinking,  the 
nature  of  the  verb  makes  possible  several  construc- 
tions to  follow,  always  with  the  rather  remote  possi- 
bility that  the  verb  may  be  used  absolutely.  The  re- 
maining possibilities  are  all  alike  in  their  fundamental 
characteristic:  whether  there  follows  direct  quota- 
tion or  indirect,  or  a  noun  in  the  accusative,  the  rela- 


150  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tion  to  the  verb  of  saying  or  thinking  is  really  the 
same.  That  their  meaning  gives  these  verbs  a  some- 
what greater  relativity  than  that  of  ordinary  transi- 
tive verbs  is  shown  by  the  rhetorical  development  of 
this  particular  type  of  expression.  In  the  place  of  a 
simple  verb  of  saying  there  was  used  in  Latin  the 
widest  range  of  phrases  implying  the  notion  of  saying, 
which,  on  becoming  familiar  to  the  reader,  suggest  with 
the  same  force  that  dico  shows,  the  object  clause  to 
follow.  And  when  these  phrases  are  employed,  there 
must  always  follow  a  phrase  or  series  of  phrases,  for 
they  cannot,  like  the  simple  verb,  take  after  them  a 
simple  noun  object.  They  would  all  be  taken  as  abso- 
lute statements  without  any  relativity,  the  connection 
expressed  solely  by  change  of  mode,  if  experience  did 
not  show  them  to  belong  to  the  dico  class. 

Loquor  and  respondeo  are  like  dico  in  being  used 
both  intransitively  and  transitively  but  loquor  espe- 
cially is  primarily  intransitive  and  gains  the  antici- 
patory force  by  analogy.  Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  1.84.3: 
Audiente  utroque  exercitu  loquitur  Afranius:  non  esse 
aut  ipsis,  etc.  It  is  the  change  of  mode  which  finally 
makes  sure  the  relation.  Perhaps  the  simplest  analo- 
gous phrase  is  verba  facere:  Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.  83.2: 
Ad  ea  rex  satis  placide  verba  facit:  sese  pacem  cupere, 
etc.  The  folloAving  examples  will  illustrate  the  exten- 
sion of  the  usage.  Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  1.24.5:  Quem 
Caesar  ad  eum  remittit  cum  mandatis:  quoniam  .  .  . 
facultas  conloquendi  non  fuerit  .  .  .  interesse  rei  pub- 
licae,  etc.  Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.,  88.5 :  Nam  Bocchus  nun- 
tios  ad  eum  saepe  miserat:  velle  populi  Romani  amici- 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  151 

tiam,  etc.  Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  1.20.5 :  legatosque  ex  suo 
numero  ad  Caesar  em  mittunt:  sese  paratos  esse  portas 
aperire,  etc.  Tac.  Ann.  1.48.3:  praemittit  litteras  ad 
Caecinam,  venire  se  valida  manu.  Tac.  Rist.  III.81.7 : 
Obviae  fuere  et  virgines  Vestales  cum  epistulis  Vitellii 
ad  Antonium  scriptis:  eximi  supremo  certamini  unum 
dieyn  postulahat.  This  last  instance  shows  that  the 
anticipation  has  a  force  which  is  felt  even  when  a 
different  construction  follows  it. 

Two  classes  of  incomplete  verbs  should  be  noted  in 
passing,  both  of  them  anticipatory  in  force  but  both 
of  them  quite  obvious  in  view  of  the  preceding  dis- 
cussion. The  first  comprises  the  impersonal  verbs  like 
licet,  oportet,  necesse  est,  which  are  incomplete  in 
meaning  and  which,  regardless  of  what  particular  con- 
struction follows,  clearly  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
their  clause  is  incomplete  and  related  to  what  follows. 
The  other  class  is  much  like  this,  namely,  the  personal 
verbs  whose  incompleteness  of  meaning  requires  some 
further  verbal  notion  to  make  sense,  the  verbs  regu- 
larly followed  by  a  complementary  infinitive,  such  as 
pergo,  cesso,  or  desino.  The  difference  between  these 
verbs  and  the  pello  class  is  that  these  are  intransitive ; 
their  meaning  prevents  us  from  looking  for  a  tangible 
object.  The  incompleteness  is  therefore  different  in 
the  tone  of  its  suggestion  rather  than  in  kind.  Be- 
hind all  of  these  classes  of  verbs  is  the  same  principle, 
that  of  semantic  incompleteness. 

In  turning  to  a  consideration  of  the  anticipatory 
use  of  the  adjectives  alter,  alius,  ceterus,  and  the  like, 


152  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

we  reach  a  much  more  important  field  of  anticipatory- 
force.  It  is  primarily  ceterus  which  exhibits  this 
usage.  Par  and  similis  seem  never  to  have  acquired 
anticipatory  force;  alter  and  alius,  used  in  the  first 
sentence  of  a  pair,  are  much  like  the  correlative  demon- 
stratives and  will  be  considered  briefly.  But  ceterus 
and  the  less  frequently  used  reliquus  have  a  meaning 
which  singles  them  out  for  a  rhetorical  use  of  great 
importance. 

Alter  and  alius  are  essentially  comparative  in  mean- 
ing. The  notion  of  ''another"  or  ''the  other"  implies 
someone  or  something  discussed  in  another  clause.  In 
simple  narrative  their  use  would  therefore  be  con- 
fined to  retrospective  reference.  But  like  the  demon- 
stratives, perhaps  by  analogy  with  them,  these  words 
came  to  be  used  in  a  correlative  way.  If  the  items 
under  discussion  are  clear  to  the  reader,  then  the  use 
of  alter  or  alius  for  one  of  them  or  for  one  group  of 
them,  indicates  a  differentiation  to  be  further  made 
clear  by  a  second  alter  or  alius  in  the  following  sen- 
tence or  clause.  Like  the  anticipatory  et,  the  anticipa- 
tory alter  or  alius  becomes  a  warning  of  functional 
repetition  to  follow.  Whether  the  exact  relation  of 
clauses  will  be  one  of  parallelism  or  of  contrast  is  not 
determined  without  further  means.  The  usage  is  nar- 
row and  does  not  lead  to  any  very  significant  types  of 
sentence  connection. 

When,  however,  we  speak,  not  of  "others"  but  of 
"the  others,"  or  of  "the  rest,"  notions  expressed  by 
ceterus,  we  exclude  a  certain  number  of  whatever  ob- 
jects are  under  discussion.     That  number  is  limited 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  153 

either  by  what  has  already  been  said  or  by  what  is 
immediately  to  be  said ;  the  very  word  ceterus  implies 
always  a  definite  part  of  some  whole  excluded  from 
the  ceterus  clause.  For  example,  Tac.  Ann.  XV.50.8: 
Natalis  particeps  ad  omne  secretum  Pisoni  erat, 
ceteris  spes  ex  novis  rebus  petehatur.  The  ceteris 
refers  to  all  of  the  supporters  of  the  Pisonian  conspir- 
acy except  Natalis  and  Senecio  (who  was  excluded  by 
the  previous  sentence).  So  in  Agricola  34.8,  Tacitus 
makes  Agricola  say:  sic  acerrimi  Britannorum  iam 
pridem  ceciderunt,  reliquus  est  numerus  ignavorum 
et  metuentium.  The  dead  Britons  are  excluded;  all 
the  rest  are  cowards.  It  is  the  force  of  the  reliquus, 
which  includes  all  the  Britons  except  the  specifically 
excluded,  that  gives  to  the  appeal  its  rhetorical  effect. 
Now  turn  this  around.  Suppose  there  occurs  the 
sentence,  Ceteri  sine  mora  veniunt  (Sallust,  Cat.  46.4), 
in  a  context  in  which  nothing  has  appeared  to  explain 
the  ceteri.  As  yet  there  has  been  no  exception  defined 
from  which  ''the  rest"  are  isolated.  The  effect  is  some- 
thing more  than  mere  incompleteness.  The  fact  that 
ceterus  by  its  meaning  isolates  one  exception  or  one 
group  of  exceptions,  serves  two  purposes:  it  puts  an 
emphasis  on  the  exception  and  it  suggests  that  the 
action  or  quality  ascribed  to  the  exception  is  distinctly 
different  from  the  action  or  quality  ascribed  to  the 
rest  of  the  group  from  which  it  is  taken.  The  conclu- 
sion, then,  to  the  sentence  quoted  is  not  unexpected: 
Caeparius,  paulo  ante  domo  egressus,  cognito  indicia 
ex  urbe  profugerat.  This  is  rhetorical,  but  it  was  a 
familiar  and  frequently  employed  usage  and  the  prin- 


154  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

ciple  involved  almost  lost  any  rhetorical  earmarks 
before  classical  times. 

A  few  typical  cases  of  this  usage  with  ceterus  are 
the  following.  Seneca,  De  Brev.  Vit.  7.9:  De  cetero 
fors  fortuna,  ut  volet,  ordinet:  vita  iam  in  tuto  est. 
Here  the  cetero  goes  so  far  as  to  include  everything 
existent  with  the  exception  of  vita.  The  meaning  of 
alius  is  sometimes  extended  and  made  the  same  as 
that  of  ceterus  to  serve  in  this  usage :  Tac.  Ann.  11.38. 
24:  Egere  alii  grates:  siluit  Hortalus,  etc.  In  Cicero, 
Epist.  I.l.l,  the  principle  of  repetition  is  made  use 
of  in  the  second  clause  and  plays  its  part  in  expressing 
the  sentence  relation,  but  the  force  of  ceterus  in  antici- 
pating the  relation  is  undiminished.  Ego  omni  officio 
ac  potius  pietate  erga  te  ceteris  satis  facio  omnibus, 
mihi  ipsi  numquam  satis  facio.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  11.18. 
2:  Non  dubitant  iurare  ceteri;  Laterensis  existimatur 
laute  fecisse,  quod  trihunatum.  pi.  petere  destitit,  ne 
iuraret.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  III.15.2:  Nam  ceteri  dolores 
mitigantur  vetustate,  hie  non  potest  non  .  .  .  cotidie 
augeri. 

In  Tac.  Hist.  III.10.15,  the  exception  is  marked  as 
such  by  the  use  of  unus,  "alone,"  but  again  this  proves 
to  be  only  a  supplementary  expression  of  relation ;  fre- 
mitu  et  clamore  ceteros  aspernantur.  Uni  Antonio 
apertae  militum  aures.  Much  the  same  is  the  rein- 
forcement in  Cicero,  Pro  P.  Sulla  25.71 :  Omitto  ceteros, 
ne  sit  infinitum;  tantum  a  vohis  peto,  ut  taciti  de  omni- 
bus .  .  .  cogitetis.  Most  frequently  a  conjunction 
introducing  the  second  sentence  is  the  means  of  mak- 
ing the  relation  absolutely  clear.    The  conjunction  is 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  155 

purely  supplementary,  however.  Sallust,  Cat.  52.1: 
Postquam  Caesar  dicundi  finem  fecit,  ceteri  verho 
aliis  alii  varie  adsentiehantur.  At  M.  Porcius  Cato 
rogatus  sententiam  huiusce  modi  orationem  habuit. 
Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.9.35 :  Cetera,  inquit,  adsentior  Crasso 
.  .  .  ;  sed  ilia  duo,  Crasse,  vereor  ut  tihi  possum  con- 
cedere.  Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.3.12 :  quia  ceterarum  artium 
studia  fere  reconditis  atque  ahditis  e  fontibus  hauri- 
untur,  dicendi  autem  omnis  ratio  in  medio  posita  com- 
muni  quodam  in  usu  .   .   .  versatur. 

Quite  different,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  reinforce- 
ment in  Tac.  Ann.  XIV.32.15,  and  it  throws  some  addi- 
tional light  on  the  principle  underlying  the  usage:  Et 
cetera  quidem  impetu  direpta  aut  incensa  sunt:  tem- 
plum,  in  quo  se  miles  conglohaverat,  hiduo  obsessum 
expurgatumque.  In  this  instance  the  device  used  to 
supplement  ceterus  is  in  the  same  clause  with  it ;  it  is 
itself  anticipatory.  It  lies  in  the  word  quidem.  Qui- 
dem alone  is  practically  empty  of  meaning.  A  study 
of  its  function  throughout  many  instances  indicates 
that  it  brings  into  relief  some  word  in  its  clause,  most 
often  the  word  which  it  follows,  giving  it  a  marked 
emphasis.  Sometimes  it  seems  to  emphasize  the 
clause  rather  than  a  specific  word,  but  regularly  it 
emphasizes  the  word.  Now  when  there  is  nothing 
preceding  the  clause  in  which  the  quidem  stands  that 
can  account  for  this  emphasis,  the  instinctive  conclu- 
sion is  that  the  word  emphasized  is  being  impressed 
on  the  mind  to  bring  it  into  some  clear-cut  relation 
with  something  in  the  following  clause.  It  is  practi- 
cally the  same  effect  which  ceterus  has  by  itself  by 


156  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

virtue  of  its  meaning.  And  just  as  with  ceterus,  the 
suggestive  emphasis  produced  by  the  use  of  quidem 
seems  regularly  to  be  the  warning  of  a  contrast  to  the 
word  emphasized. 

This  is  borne  out  by  the  very  frequent  use  of  a  con- 
junction in  the  sentence  following  the  one  with  the 
quidem,  always  an  adversative  conjunction.  Mark 
the  contrast  in  Livy  XXI.29.7,  between  timehat  and 
magis  metuehat:  MuUitudo  timehat  quidem  hostem 
.  .  .  ,  sed  magis  iter  immensum  Alpesque  .  .  .  metue- 
hat. The  contrast  would  not  be  obvious  without  qui- 
dem and  the  conjunction,  for  the  repetition  of  function 
is  not  very  marked  and  might  be  overshadowed  by  the 
semantic  repetition.  The  two  cases  following  are  simi- 
lar, except  for  the  fact  that  the  contrast  is  more  ob- 
vious without  the  mechanical  indicators.  Quintilian, 
Inst.  Orat.  I.  Proem.  15 :  Ac  veterum  quidem  sapientiae 
professorum  multos  et  honesta  praecepisse  et,  ut  prae- 
ceperint,  etiam  vixisse,  facile  concesserim;  nostris 
vero  temporihus  suh  hoc  nomine  maxima  in  plerisque 
vitia  latuerunt.  Cicero,  In  Q.  Caec.  5.18:  hanc  Jiahent 
arcem  minus  aliquanto  nunc  quidem  munitam  quam 
antea,  verum  tamen,  si  qua  reliqua  spes  est,  quae  socio- 
rum  animos  consolari  possit,  ea  tota  in  Jiac  lege  posita 
est. 

Such  examples  are  innumerable.  An  understanding 
of  the  force  imparted  by  the  quidem  may  be  gained 
by  a  glance  at  two  quotations  from  Cicero.  In  the 
Tusculan  Disputations  1.33.81,  he  says :  Vellem  adesse 
posset  Panaetius.  This  is  an  unfulfilled  wish  and  it 
is  conceivable  that  there  should  be  nothing  following. 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  157 

Cicero  might  be  merely  stating  a  wish  with  no  ulterior 
thought.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  anticipatory  sign 
of  relation  in  the  clause ;  if  another  clause  is  to  follow, 
it  will  follow  without  prejudice.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
what  does  follow  is  an  explanation  of  what  Cicero 
would  do  if  Panaetius  were  present:  quaererem  ex  eo, 
cuius  suorum  similis  fuisset  Africani  fratris  nepos. 
In  the  retrospect  the  first  clause  comes  to  have  the 
same  effect  as  a  conditional  clause,  but  it  did  not  have 
it  by  itself.  Now  compare  another  unfulfilled  wish  in 
the  speech  against  Caecilius,  12.40:  Utinam  quidem 
essent!  At  once  the  quidem  gives  a  different  tone  to 
this  wish.  The  utinam,  the  sign  of  a  wish,  is  empha- 
sized significantly;  warning  is  given  of  a  comparison, 
probably  a  contrast,  to  follow,  and  the  first  words  of 
the  next  clause  make  this  certain :  verum  tamen  ut  esse 
possent,  magno  studio  mihi  a  pueritia  est  elahoratum. 
With  such  evidence  of  the  force  of  quidem,  the  com- 
paratively few  instances  of  its  unsupported  use  are 
clear.  For  example,  Livy  XXXL36.3:  Et  equitatus 
quidem  cessit,  duces  caetratae  cohortis  non  satis  ex- 
pectato  signo  ante  tempus  excitatis  suis  occasionem 
bene  gerendae  rei  amisere.  Tac.  Germ.  6.5:  Et  eques 
quidem  scuto  frameaque  contentus  est;  pedites  et  mis- 
silia  spargunt.  Livy  1.57.11:  Et  tum  quidem  ah  noc- 
turno  iuvenali  ludo  in  castra  redeunt.  Faucis  interiec- 
tis  diehus  Sex.  Tarquinius  .  .  .  Collatiam  venit.  Tac. 
Ann.  XV. 44.1:  Et  haec  quidem  humanis  consiliis  pro- 
videbantur.  Mox  petita  dis  piacula,  etc.  Tac.  Agr. 
17.7 :  Et  Cerialis  quidem  alterius  successoris  curam 
famamque  obruisset;  subiit  sustinuitque  molem  lulius 


158  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

Frontinus.  In  this  last  example,  Tacitus  shows  his 
fondness  for  unusual  arrangement  by  putting  the  qui- 
dem  before  rather  than  after  the  alterius.  In  a  later 
chapter  of  the  Agricola  (38.1),  his  order  is  even  more 
unusual,  but  even  so,  the  force  of  the  quidem  is  clear. 
Et  nox  quidem  gaudio  praedaque  laeta  victoribus: 
Britanni  palantes  mixtoque  virorum  mulierumque 
ploratu,  trahere  vulneratos,  etc.  Nox  is  almost  the 
only  word  not  contrasted  with  something! 

Sane,  although  not  so  empty  a  word,  has  much  the 
same  force  as  quidem.  As  an  adverb  it  has  an  inde- 
pendent meaning  and  in  this  meaning  is  probably  to 
be  found  the  origin  of  the  anticipatory  force  of  this 
class  of  words.  For  it  is  an  intensive  adverb  and 
therefore  adds  emphasis  to  the  word  or  phrase  with 
which  it  is  used,  and  when  that  emphasis  finds  no  ex- 
planation in  the  past  context,  it  becomes  suggestive 
of  a  relation  to  be  developed,  regularly  that  of  con- 
trast, often  contrast  between  what  is  true  and  what 
is  not  true,  or  vice  versa.  An  instance  from  Plautus 
throws  light  on  this  development:  Pseud.  662:  Sane 
sapis  et  consilium  placet.  Sed  vide  sis  ne  in  quaestione 
sis  quando  accersam  mihi.  The  sane  is  on  the  line 
between  its  simple  meaning  of  *'very"  and  its  use  as 
a  mere  indicator  of  relation. 

Most  of  the  cases  of  sane  used  with  anticipatory 
force  are  supplemented  by  an  adversative  conjunction 
in  the  following  clause,  but  that  this  is  not  altogether 
necessary  will  be  seen  from  the  last  two  of  the  follow- 
ing examples.  Cicero,  In  Verrem  11.53.132:  Nihil 
sane  vafre  nee  malitiose  facere  conatus  est;  sed  ut 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  159 

studia  cupiditatesque  honorum  .  .  .  tollerentur,  .  .  . 
ostendit  sese  in  omnibus  civitatihus  censores  esse 
facturum.  Cicero,  Acad.  1.7.25 :  Bene  sane  facis;  sed 
enitar,  ut  Latine  loquar,  etc.  Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.  42.2: 
Et  sane  Gracchis  cupidine  victoriae  hand  satis  modera- 
tus  animus  fuit:  sed  bono  vinci  satius  est  quam  malo 
more  iniuriam  vincere.  Tac.  Ann.  XIV.44.5 :  Sane 
consilium  occuUavit,  telum  inter  ignaros  paravit:  num 
excubias  transire  .  .  .  caedem  patrare  poterat  omnibus 
nesciis?  Cicero,  De  Fin.  11.26.82 :  Sed  haec  nihil  sane 
ad  rem;  ilia  videamus,  quae  a  te  de  amicitia  dicta  sunt. 

With  these  cases  are  to  be  grouped  the  following 
with  other  emphasizing  expressions.  Quint.  Inst.  Orat. 
1.6.12 :  Quaedam  sine  dubio  conantur  eruditi  defendere 
.  .  .  Illi  autem  iidem  .  .  .  etc.  Quint.  Inst.  Orat. 
IL5.21:  quae  turn  sine  dubio  erat  optima,  sed  nostris 
temporibus  aliena  est.  Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.  31.5:  Certe 
ego  libertatem  .  .  .  experiar:  verum  id  frustra  an  ob 
rem  faciam,  in  vostra  manu  situm  est,  Quirites. 
Finally,  an  instance  of  valde  is  a  good  borderline  case 
to  indicate  the  origin  of  the  usage:  Cicero,  Ad  Att. 
1.13.5 :  Quae  laudas  ex  orationibus,  mihi  crede,  valde 
mihi  placebant,  sed  non  audebam  antea  dicere.  In 
Quintilian,  1.6.22,  a  phrase  is  used  to  give  the  desired 
emphasis:  Recta  est  haec  via,  quis  negatf  Sed  adiacet 
et  mollior  et  magis  trita. 

In  such  a  sane  example  as  that  from  the  Verres 
speech,  there  is  a  further  element  of  anticipation  to  be 
noted  that  will  be  given  more  study  later  on.  The 
statement  in  which  the  sane  stands  is  the  statement 
which  the  speaker  does  not  really  believe,  as  he  has 


160  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

already  shown.  The  statement  has  therefore  a  hypo- 
thetical tone.  But  this  can  be  better  estimated  in  con- 
nection with  the  imperative  uses  to  be  discussed  later 
(p.  173).  There  are  still  left  several  groups  of  cases 
in  which  suggestive  emphasis  is  effected  in  the  first 
sentence  in  such  a  significant  way  as  to  indicate  some 
contrast  to  follow. 

The  most  frequently  used  means  to  accomplish  such 
anticipation  is  the  use  of  a  negative  statement  in  the 
first  sentence  of  a  pair,  a  negative  statement  that  does 
not  deny  or  contradict  any  other  statement  already 
made  or  any  idea  naturally  present  in  the  mind  of  the 
speaker  because  of  what  has  preceded.  Its  purpose  is 
not  immediately  clear.  By  itself  it  is  superfluous  and 
usually  irrelevant.  Since  nothing  already  stated  can 
explain  its  meaning,  the  judgment  is  held  in  suspense 
until  the  following  sentence  clears  up  the  doubt.  This 
following  statement  is  regularly  positive,  declaring 
what  is  true  in  contrast  to  what  has  been  stated  as  not 
true.  The  purpose  of  the  first  sentence  is  then  clear : 
it  is  a  rhetorical  device  for  emphasizing  by  contrast 
the  positive  statement  of  the  second. 

Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  27.73 :  Non  quaero  ahs  te, 
quare  patrem  Sex.  Roseius  oeeiderit,  quaero,  quo 
modo  oeeiderit.  The  first  sentence,  the  statement  that 
Cicero  does  not  ask  a  certain  question,  is  inconclusive 
by  itself.  He  has  already  stated  that  he  will  drop  the 
question  of  motive  and  so,  as  he  takes  up  a  new  sub- 
ject, this  negative  statement  is  quite  superfluous,  until 
the  positive  sentence  gives  it  point.    It  is  a  rhetorical 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  161 

use  of  the  principle  of  incompleteness.  The  exact 
repetition  of  the  quaero  serves  to  give  a  parallelism  to 
the  clauses  that  makes  the  contrast  more  clear,  but 
the  anticipation  in  the  non  quaero  had  already  fore- 
shadowed it.  Various  supplementary  means  are  used 
to  make  the  contrast  more  obvious.  Virtual  repetition 
appears  in  Sallust,  Bell.  Jug.  31.6 :  Nihil  vi,  nihil  seces- 
sione  opus  est:  necesse  est  suomet  ipsi  more  praeci- 
pites  emit.  In  Seneca,  De  Vita  Beata  2.2,  it  is  the  force 
of  a  comparative:  oculis  de  homine  non  credo,  haheo 
melius  et  certius  lumen  quo  a  falsis  vera  diiudicem: 
animi  honum  animus  inveniat.  Most  frequently  of  all 
an  adversative  conjunction  supplements  the  force  of 
the  anticipatory  device.  For  example.  Quint.  Inst. 
Orat.  1.2.14:  Non  enim  vox  ilia  praeceptoris  ut  coena 
minus  pluribus  sufficit,  sed  ut  sol  universis  idem  lucis 
calorisque  largitur.  So  in  Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  1.41.4,  in 
which  the  verb  veto  with  its  negative  notion  takes  the 
place  of  an  actual  negative:  vallo  muniri  vetuit,  quod 
eminere  et  procul  videri  necesse  erat,  sed  a  fronte 
contra  hostem  pedum  XV  fossam  fieri  iussit. 

These  supplementary  means  of  expression  are  not 
necessary,  as  can  be  seen  from  the  following  instances. 
Cicero,  Brutus  81.280:  industriam  non  sum  expertus; 
studium  certe  fuit.  Sallust,  Cat.  52.6:  Non  agitur  de 
vectigalihus  neque  de  sociorum  iniuriis:  lihertas  et 
anima  nostra  in  duhio  est.  Seneca,  De  Provid.  6.4: 
non  est  ista  solida  et  sincera  felicitas:  crusta  est  et 
quidem  tenuis.  Tac,  Hist.  1.76.6:  Nusquam  fides  aut 
amor:  metu  ac  necessitate  hue  illuc  mutahantur. 

There  is  one  variation  of  this  particular  application 


162  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

of  the  principle  of  anticipatory  incompleteness  which 
is  apt  to  lead  to  confusion.  It  is  illustrated  by  an 
instance  from  Tacitus  {Ann.  XIV.25.1) :  At  praesidium 
Legerda  .  .  .  non  sine  certamine  expugnatum  est:  nam 
et  proelium  pro  muris  ausi  erant  et  pulsi  intra  muni- 
menta  aggeri  demum  et  inrumpentium  armis  cesser e. 
The  use  of  the  conjunction  nam  suggests  that  the  rela- 
tion here  is  not  one  of  contrast  but  that  the  second  sen- 
tence explains  the  first.  And  so  it  does.  But  there  is 
also  perfectly  clear  contrast  between  what  was  true 
and  what  was  not  true.  The  difference  here  is  that  an 
element  of  explanation  is  added  and  this  is  marked  by 
the  nam.  The  contrast  is  still  present,  prepared  for 
by  the  suggestive  use  of  the  negative.  The  explana- 
tion too  is  prepared  for  by  the  suggestive  generality 
of  the  first  statement,  but  this  will  be  more  obvious 
after  that  type  of  connection  has  been  studied  (pp. 
165  ff.).  For  the  present,  the  element  of  contrast  is  the 
noteworthy  thing  and  especially  its  anticipation  in 
the  first  clause. 

In  the  following  examples  will  be  seen  the  same  mix- 
ture of  elements  without  any  conjunction  to  serve  as 
guide.  Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  1.75.2:  Petreius  vero  non 
deserit  sese.  Armat  familiam;  etc.  Sallust,  Bell.  Jug. 
51.5:  Sed  ne  Jugurtha  quidem  interea  quietus  erat: 
circumire,  hortari,  renovare  proelium,  et  ipse  cum 
delectis  temptare  omnia.  Tac.  Hist.  III.47.1:  Nee 
ceterae  nationes  silebant.  Suhita  per  Pontum  arma 
harharum  mancipium,  regiae  quondam  classis  praefec- 
tus,  moverat. 

The  common  expression  non  modo  .  .  .  sed  etiam  is 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  163 

based  on  this  same  principle,  as  is  doubtless  clear  with- 
out illustration. 

There  is  an  interesting  extension  of  this  use  of  an 
irrelevant  negative  to  anticipate  a  contrast,  which  be- 
comes a  very  frequent  rhetorical  device.  That  is  the 
use  of  a  condition  contrary  to  fact.  By  its  very  char- 
acter such  a  condition  gives  to  the  sentence  in  which 
it  stands  an  incompleteness  of  tone.  For,  like  the 
negative  sentence  which  has  no  bearing  on  what  has 
preceded,  the  condition  contrary  to  fact  is  irrelevant 
or  at  least  inconclusive  without  reference  to  something 
outside  itself.  If,  then,  such  satisfactory  fulfilment 
has  not  preceded,  the  anticipatory  effect  of  the  irrele- 
vant negative  clause  is  reproduced.  For  example, 
Seneca,  De  Ira  11.33.6:  Contempsisses  Romanum  pat- 
rem,  si  sibi  timuisset;  nunc  iram  compescuit  pietas. 
Seneca,  Ad  Helviam  18.9:  Numerarem  inter  magna 
solacia  patrem  quoque  tuum  nisi  ahesset;  nunc  tamen 
ex  adfectu  tuo,  qui  illius  in  te  sit  cogita.  Cicero,  Pro 
Quinctio  1.2 :  Neque  hoc  tanto  opere  querendum  videre- 
tur,  haec  summa  in  illis  esse,  si  in  nobis  essent  saltern 
mediocria:  verum  ita  se  res  habet  ut  ego,  etc. 

In  each  of  these  three  examples  a  word  is  used  in 
the  second  clause  to  make  the  relation  absolutely  ob- 
vious, either  nunc  or  an  adversative  conjunction  or 
both.  Nunc  is  probably  the  most  frequently  used;  it 
is  without  temporal  significance  and  is  employed  sim- 
ply to  mark  the  contrast  of  a  statement  of  fact  with  the 
unreal  condition,  like  vvv  Se  in  Greek.  But  neither 
of  these  obvious  signs  is  absolutely  necessary.  The 
anticipation  is  always  there  and  the  contrast  is  very 


164  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

often  left  to  speak  for  itself.  A  few  instances  are 
enough  for  illustration.  Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  14.47: 
nihil  hoc  tanto  negotio,  nihil  tarn  invidioso  iudicio, 
nihil  tarn  copiosa  advocatione  uterer,  si  petendum 
esset;  extorquendum  est  invito  atque  ingratiis.  Livy 
XXI.43.6:  Si  Sicilimn  tantum  ac  Sardiniam  parentihus 
nostris  ereptas  nostra  virtute  recuperaturi  essemus, 
satis  tamen  ampla  pretia  essent:  quidquid  Romani  tot 
triumphis  partum  congestumque  possident,  id  omne 
vestrum  cum  ipsis  dominis  futurum  est.  Sallust,  Cat. 
18.8:  Quodni  Catilina  maturasset  pro  curia  signum 
sociis  dare,  eo  die  post  conditam  urhem  Romam  pessu- 
mum  f acinus  patratum  foret.  Quia  nondum  frequentes 
armati  convenerant,  ea  res  consilium  diremit. 

There  are  other  ways  of  anticipating  contrast,  but 
the  general  principle  has  been  amply  illustrated  and 
may  be  stated  as  follows:  Any  method  of  markedly 
emphasizing  a  word  or  phrase  or  clause,  when  such 
emphasis  has  no  bearing  on  the  context  already  dis- 
closed, serves  to  indicate  probable  contrast  to  follow. 
It  will  be  sufficient  to  call  attention  to  two  familiar 
forms  through  which  the  principle  works.  One  con- 
sists of  putting  the  word  to  be  emphasized  in  an  un- 
usual or  prominent  position,  as  in  the  case  of  the  illis 
in  Sallust,  Cat.  51.26:  Illis  merito  accidet  quicquid 
evenerit:  ceterum  vos,  patres  conscripti,  quid  in  alios 
statuatis,  considerate.  The  other  type  is  based  on  the 
singling  out  of  some  specific  detail  and  so  dramng 
attention  to  it,  without  apparent  reason,  until  the  sec- 
ond clause  is  reached.  This  is  illustrated  by  Tac.  Ann. 
XIV.57.10:   cui  caveri  utcumque  ah   urhanis  insidiis 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  165 

praesenti  opera;  longinquos  motus  quonam  modo  com- 
primi  posset  Wliy  urbanis  insidiis  should  be  singled 
out  from  the  general  danger  is  not  clear  until  the  con- 
trast with  longinquos  motus  is  brought  out. 

All  of  these  methods  of  giving  suggestive  empha- 
sis to  some  word  or  phrase  are  methods  of  anticipating 
a  contrast,  an  adversative  relation,  some  of  them 
natural,  some  of  them  highly  rhetorical.  Another  type 
of  rhetorical  usage  anticipates  a  different  sentence 
relation.  It  is  widely  used  and  based  like  the  other 
anticipatory  uses  on  the  element  of  incompleteness. 
In  the  present  group  that  incompleteness  lies  in  a  word 
or  phrase  so  general  in  meaning  or  so  vague  as  to  be 
practically  valueless  in  the  narrative  without  some 
explanatory  statement  or  statements  following  it  to 
give  it  point.  Seneca,  De  Brev.  Vit.  12.9,  reads :  Non 
est  ergo  hie  otiosus,  aliud  illi  nomen  imponas.  The  first 
clause  of  course  acquires  its  anticipatory  force  from 
the  inconclusive  negative  sentence.  But  after  the  posi- 
tive statement  has  been  made  and  the  anticipated  con- 
trast thus  completed,  there  is  still  a  sense  of  incom- 
pleteness about  the  sentence :  aliud  illi  nomen  imponas 
is  quite  inconclusive  and  the  mind  is  left  in  suspense 
until  the  rest  of  the  sentence  gives  a  specific  explana- 
tion which  satisfies  the  anticipation:  aeger  est,  immo 
mortuus  est. 

An  instance  not  complicated  by  the  presence  of  the 
negative  clause  is  Tac.  Ann.  III.31.7 :  Ac  forte  parva 
res  magnum  ad  certamen  progressa  praehuit  iuveni 
materiam  apiscendi  favoris.    Parva  res,  magnum  cer- 


166  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

tamen  are  intentionally  vague  and  inconclusive,  parva 
res  in  particular  adding  nothing  specific  to  the  narra- 
tive and  serving  simply  to  hold  the  attention  until  the 
explanation  follows :  Domitius  Corbulo  praetura  func- 
tus de  L.  Sulla  nohili  iuvene  questus  est  apud  senatum. 

In  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  1.1.3,  the  vague  statement  that 
there  is  something  that  Cicero  wishes  forgiven,  has  in 
its  setting  no  conclusive  or  satisfactory  meaning.  A 
context  can  be  imagined  in  which  this  statement,  sed 
est  quod  abs  te  ignosci  pervelim,  might  be  logically 
complete.  Suppose  some  action  of  his  had  been  under 
discussion  and  he  had  said  that  he  realized  it  to  be 
something  which  it  would  be  hard  for  Atticus  to  over- 
look, and  had  continued,  sed  est,  quod  abs  te  ignosci 
pervelim.  There  would  have  been  no  anticipatory 
vagueness  at  all.  But  as  it  stands,  with  nothing  defi- 
nite behind  it,  the  vague  est  quod  requires  an  explana- 
tion which  follows:  Caecilius,  avunculus  tuus,  a  P. 
Vario  cum  magna  pecunia  frauderetur,  agere  coepit, 
etc.  Not  infrequently  the  vague  word  res  is  employed 
in  this  way.  Seneca,  Ad  Polyb.  11.3:  Deinde  adiecit 
rem  maioris  et  prudentiae  et  animi:  ''Et  huic  rei  sus- 
tuli."  Or  again,  Seneca,  De  Provid.  1.1:  faciam  rem 
non  difficilem,  causam  deorum  agam. 

Frequently  such  a  statement  as  Interea  Romae  multa 
simul  moliri  (Sallust,  Cat.  27.2)  is  quite  unsatisfac- 
tory in  its  context;  the  statement  that  many  things 
were  being  planned  merely  leads  the  reader  to  look 
forward  to  a  specification  of  what  at  least  some  of 
them  were.  And  in  this  he  is  not  disappointed :  insi- 
dias  tendere,  parare  incendia,  opportuna  loca  armatis 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  167 

hominibus  obsidere.  Ipse  cum  telo  esse,  etc.  Such  an 
instance  is  Quint.  Inst.  Orat.  1.11.9:  Nam  frons  pluri- 
hus  generibus  peccat.  Vidi  multos,  quorum  supercilia 
ad  singulos  vocis  conatus  allevarentur,  aliorum  con- 
stricta,  aliorum  etiam  dissidentia,  cum  alterum  in  ver- 
ticem  tenderent,  altera  paene  oculus  ipse  premeretur. 

Again,  the  word  which  gives  the  tone  of  inconclu- 
siveness  may  be  a  word  that  specifically  indicates  an 
analysis  to  follow,  as  in  the  following  examples.  Sal- 
lust,  Bell.  Jug.  25.6:  primo  conmotus  metu  atque  luhi- 
dine  divorsus  agitahatur:  timebat  iram  senatus,  ni 
paruisset  legatis;  porro  animus  cupidine  caecus  ad 
inceptum  scelus  rapiebatur.  Tac.  Ann.  1.80.4:  Causae 
variae  traduntur:  alii  taedio  novae  curae  semel  placita 
pro  aeternis  servavisse,  quidam  invidia,  ne  plures 
fruerentur ;  sunt  qui  existiment,  ut  callidum  eius  inge- 
nium,  ita  anxium  iudicium.  Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  1.39.4: 
Quo  facto  duas  res  consecutus  est,  quod  pignore  animos 
centurionum  devinxit  et  largitione  militum  voluntates 
redemit.  Cicero,  Epist.  1.2.1 :  postulatum  est,  ut  Bibuli 
sententia  divideretur.  Quatenus  de  religione  dicebat 
.  .  .  Bibulo  adsensum  est;  de  tribus  legatis  frequentes 
ierunt  in  alia  omnia. 

The  vague  statement  is  sometimes  not  especially 
vague  or  general  in  itself  and  contains  no  such  half 
empty  word  as  res  or  diversus,  and  may  yet  have  the 
inconclusive  effect  of  a  vague  statement  because  it  is 
quite  irrelevant  until  explained  by  a  subsequent  state- 
ment. Such  is  the  statement  in  Tac.  Ann.  1.29.12: 
Promptum  ad  asperiora  ingenium  Druso  erat.  In  a 
description  of  Drusus'  character  this  would  not  be  so 


168  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

general  or  vague  as  to  suggest  specifications  to  follow. 
But  it  does  not  occur  in  any  such  description;  it  is 
thrown  into  the  narrative  quite  unexpectedly.  The 
explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the  rest  of  the  sentence : 
vocatos  Vibulenum  et  Percennium  interfici  iuhet.  Com- 
pare Cicero,  In  Q.  Caec.  17.55 :  Cognosite  ex  me.  There 
is  nothing  very  strikingly  unexpected  in  this  injunction, 
but  there  is  no  apparent  need  of  the  me:  cognoscite 
would  seem  to  express  the  appeal  sufficiently  well. 
That  the  me  was  intentionally  used  is  shown  by  the 
following  clause  explaining  it:  nam  iste  eam  profecto, 
nisi  plane  nihil  sapit,  numquam  proferet.  And  inas- 
much as  the  contrast  between  me  and  iste  might  sug- 
gest too  significant  a  change,  a  supplementary  nam  is 
used. 

In  general,  this  usage  is  found  very  frequently  in 
the  more  rhetorical  writers.  Seneca  especially  abounds 
in  it.  It  is  not  common  in  the  more  simple  authors, 
although  such  examples  as  the  following  are  not  infre- 
quent in  Caesar:  Bell.  Civ.  1.73.1:  Postero  die  duces 
.  .  .  de  reliquis  rebus  consuUabant.  Erat  unum  iter, 
Ilerdam  si  reverti  vellent,  alterum,  si  Tarraconem 
peterent. 

All  of  these  types  of  vague  or  irrelevent  sentences 
serve,  by  means  of  suspense,  to  make  the  sentence  that 
follows  emphatic.  In  this  respect  they  are  like  the 
negative  sentences  already  illustrated.  But  they  antici- 
pate a  different  type  of  sentence  to  follow,  an  explan- 
atory sentence.  This  conclusion  is  borne  out  by  a 
study  of  the  conjunctions  used  to  supplement  the 
expression  of  relation.     These  are  regularly  nam  and 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  169 

enim,  which,  from  their  original  asseverative  notion, 
came  to  be  the  regular  indicators  of  an  explanation. 
It  has  already  been  shown  (Chap.  Ill,  p.  58)  that,  with 
repetition  of  content,  they  regularly  mark  an  explana- 
tory sentence;  also  with  such  incomplete  words  as 
ceterus.  Here,  again,  they  serve  the  same  function, 
but  here,  too,  they  are  not  primarily  means  of  con- 
nection. 

Two  instances  from  Tacitus  will  show  the  supple- 
mentary nature  of  the  conjunction.  In  Hist.  V.4.2, 
there  is  no  conjunction :  Prof  ana  illic  omnia  quae  apud 
nos  sacra,  rursum  concessa  apud  illos  quae  nobis 
incesta.  The  inconclusive  vagueness  of  this  sentence 
is  merely  to  emphasize  by  suspense  the  details  that 
follow  through  the  paragraph,  beginning,  Effigiem  ani- 
malis,  etc.  In  paragraph  5,  there  is  a  similar  vague- 
ness used  with  the  same  purpose :  Hi  ritus  quoquo  modo 
inducti  antiquitate  defenduntur:  cetera  instituta,  sinis- 
tra foeda,  pravitate  valuere.  But  this  time  the  ex- 
planatory details  which  fill  the  paragraph,  begin.  Nam 
pessimus  quisque. 

The  following  instances  with  conjunctions  will  bear 
out  the  indications  of  this  passage  from  Tacitus. 
Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  1.51.6 :  Hoc  pugnae  tempus  magnum 
attulit  nostris  ad  salutem  momentum;  nacti  enim  spa- 
tium  se  in  loca  superiora  receperunt.  Caesar,  Bell. 
Civ.  1.48.1 :  Accidit  etiam  repentinum  incommodum 
biduo,  quo  haec  gesta  sunt.  Tanta  enim  tempestas 
cooritur,  ut  numquam  illis  locis  maiores  aquas  fuisse 
constaret.  Sallust,  Cat.  46.2:  At  ilium  ingens  cura 
atque  laetitia  simul  occupavere:  nam  laetahatur  intel- 


170  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

legens  coniuratione  patefacta  civitatem  periculis  erep- 
tam  esse,  etc.  The  repetition  of  laetitia  in  laetahatur 
shows  the  force  of  retrospective  connection,  but  the 
anticipatory  is  obvious  too  and  the  nam  supplements 
both.  Suetonius,  Caligula  19 :  Novum  praeterea  atque 
inauditum  genus  spectaculi  excogitavit.  Nam  Baia- 
rum  medium  intervallum  ad  Puteolanas  moles  .  .  . 
ponte  coniunxit,  etc.  The  conjunction  has  the  same 
function  of  supplementing  a  relation  adequately  ex- 
pressed by  other  means,  when  it  is  used  after  a  clause 
containing  a  word  that  implies  analysis,  as  in  Nepos, 
Pausanias  1.1 :  Pausanias  Lacedaemonius  magnus 
homo,  sed  varius  in  omni  genere  vitae  fuit:  nam  ut 
virtutihus  eluxit,  sic  vitiis  est  obrutus.  That  the  rela- 
tion between  the  clauses  does  not  depend  for  expres- 
sion on  the  conjunction,  is  finally  shown  by  the  use  of 
que  in  a  similar  instance,  the  que  really  performing  no 
further  function  than  to  mark  the  subsequence  of  the 
second  clause  without  defining  its  relation  to  the  first : 
Tac.  Hist.  11.57.11 :  dein  mohilitate  ingenii,  quod  palam 
ahnuerat,  inter  secreta  convivii  largitur  honoravitque 
Asiaticum  anulis. 

No  doubt,  more  variations  of  this  principle  of  antici- 
pation by  means  of  semantic  incompleteness  could  be 
found,  but  those  already  discussed  are  the  most  com- 
monly used  and  serve  sufficiently  well  to  make  the 
principle  evident.  There  remain  the  forms  of  func- 
tional incompleteness  that  lead  to  anticipation.  Most 
of  these  require  little  discussion.  For  in  most  types 
the  principle  is  identical  with  that  of  the  retrospective 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  171 

adaptations  of  functional  incompleteness  except  that 
nothing  already  disclosed  in  the  context  satisfies  the 
incompleteness,  so  that  the  judgment  must  wait  for 
satisfaction  until  the  following  sentence  or  clause  is 
developed. 

This  fact  was  illustrated  in  passing  in  the  section 
on  retrospective  incompleteness  (e.g.,  Chap.  IV,  p.  106) 
and  needs  but  brief  illustration  here.  With  the 
infinitive,  the  effect  is  obvious,  for  the  infinitive  is 
the  name  of  an  action  and  as  a  noun  is  normally  de- 
pendent on  some  verb  to  complete  its  meaning  in  the 
sentence ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  this  substantival  char- 
acter of  the  infinitive  somewhat  removes  it  from  the 
discussion.  The  numerous  sentences,  however,  in  Taci- 
tus '  Germania  beginning  with  an  infinitive  surely  illus- 
trate the  principle.  For  example,  21.1:  Suscipere 
tarn  inimicitias  seu  patris  seu  propinqui  quam  amici- 
tias,  is  beyond  question  incomplete.  The  only  alterna- 
tive possibility,  that  the  verbs  might  be  narrative,  is 
eliminated  by  the  nature  of  the  context  and  by  the  lack 
of  any  natural  subject  for  the  verbs.  The  necesse  est 
that  follows  comes  as  no  surprise. 

The  same  is  true  of  all  syntactically  subordinate 
clauses  when  they  precede  their  **main"  verb,  cum 
clauses,  ut  clauses,  and  so  on.  But  these  are  too  ob- 
vious to  require  illustration.  One  thing,  however, 
should  be  noted.  Whether  we  have  a  conjunctional 
clause  or  one  which  the  manuals  call  a  substitute  for  a 
conjunctional  clause,  the  logical  incompleteness  is  the 
same  and  therein  lies  the  fundamental  expression  of 
relation.    The  conjunctional  uses  were  developed  for 


172  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

the  more  obvious  definition  of  the  relation  and  were 
so  constantly  used  that  they  are  looked  upon  as  regu- 
lar, but  when  other  means  are  sufficient,  it  is  hardly 
accurate  to  say  that  their  use  is  a  substitute  for  the 
conjunctional  use. 

The  anticipatory  effect  of  the  simple  subjunctive 
has  been  already  discussed  and  illustrated  (Chap.  IV, 
p.  106).  In  actual  practice  it  is  due  to  the  prevailingly 
dependent  or  contingent  nature  of  the  subjunctive. 
Bonum  haberet  animum  (Tac.  Hist.  II.46.4),  has  no 
complete  meaning  by  itself  because  of  the  function 
of  haberet.  The  following  iubebant  completes  it.  The 
same  principle  is  seen  in  Hist.  1.39.4.  In  spite  of  the 
prominent  alii  .  .  .  alii,  implying  a  plural  verb  to 
come,  the  incompleteness  of  rediret  and  of  peteret  is 
obvious :  cum  alii  in  Palatium  rediret,  alii  Capitolium 
peteret,  plerique  rostra  occupanda  censerent,  etc. 

Little  need  be  said  of  the  incomplete  tenses  used 
with  anticipatory  force.  It  is  clear  that  if  a  statement 
that  something  had  happened  or  will  have  happened 
implies  that  something  did  or  will  happen  (cf.  Chap. 
IV,  p.  108),  this  implication  will  still  be  present  even 
though  nothing  of  the  sort  has  been  stated.  In  such  a 
situation  some  statement  of  what  did  or  what  will 
happen  is  reasonably  looked  for  to  follow.  The  usage 
is  not  very  common  except  that  the  pluperfect  is  some- 
times used  with  anticipatory  force  with  the  evident 
purpose  of  emphasizing  the  time  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  a  contrast.  In  this  use  it  is  like  those 
cases  of  suggestive  emphasis  already  discussed.  Tac. 
Ann.  1.56.18 :  Fuerat  animus  Cheruscis  iuvare  Chattos, 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  173 

sed  exterruit  Caecina  hue  illuc  ferens  arma.  Tac,  Ann. 
XV.16.16:  Decesserat  certamen  virtutis  et  ambitio 
gloriae,  felicium  hominum  adfectus:  sola  misericordia 
valehat,  et  apud  minor es  magis.  Further  anticipatory 
uses  of  the  pluperfect  have  been  illustrated  in 
Chapter  V. 

The  anticipatory  use  of  the  imperative  mode  cannot 
be  passed  over  so  casually.  It  is,  to  be  sure,  pretty 
generally  recognized,  but  the  explanation  of  it  as 
standing  for  a  conditional  clause  or  a  concessive, 
rather  obscures  the  principle  which  gives  to  it  its 
particular  force.  Unlike  the  infinitive  and  the  sub- 
junctive, the  imperative  is  primarily  the  mode  of  a 
syntactically  complete  sentence.  The  natural  impulse, 
resulting  from  experience,  is  to  look  upon  an  impera- 
tive as  complete  in  meaning  also.  And  that  is  the 
way  in  which  it  commonly  occurs  in  conversation  and 
in  the  comedy. 

But  it  is  obvious  that  this  use  of  the  imperative  to 
express  a  direct  command,  is  little  called  for  in  con- 
secutive discourse.  It  has  its  place — in  drama,  where 
actual  conversation  is  reproduced,  in  the  dialogue,  in 
speeches,  and  finally,  with  verbs  of  mental  rather  than 
physical  action,  where  its  scope  is  wider.  But  the 
imperative  actually  appears  much  more  frequently 
than  such  limitations  would  seem  to  permit.  Again 
and  again  there  occur  imperatives  which  the  context, 
or  merely  our  general  experience,  tells  us  cannot  be 
intended  as  actual  commands  to  be  carried  out.    It  is 


174  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

such  imperatives  which  leave  in  the  mind  a  sense  of 
incompleteness,  not  syntactical  but  logical. 

When  Cicero  {Tusc.  Disp.  IV.24.54)  says:  Sic  ira- 
cundus  non  semper  iratus  est;  lacesse,  it  is  perfectly 
clear  that  lacesse  is  not  a  command  to  the  reader  nor 
yet  to  Cicero's  interlocutor  to  actually  go  and  rouse 
up  some  irascible  man.  The  imperative  expresses  syn- 
tactically a  complete  idea,  at  least  it  does  when  the 
object  is  assumed  from  the  preceding  sentence.  But 
since  it  cannot  be  meant  as  a  literal  command,  its 
sense  is  incomplete.  And  so  it  will  remain  so  long  as 
lacesse  itself  or  the  preceding  context  alone  is  studied. 
The  following  clause,  however,  completes  it :  iam  vide- 
bis  furentem.  When  Seneca,  speaking  of  Eegulus  {De 
Provid.  3.9)  says:  Refice  ilium  et  mitte  in  senatum, 
there  is  obviously  no  conunand  in  the  true  sense,  either 
literal  or  figurative.  Once  more  the  sense  is  incom- 
plete without  the  following  clause :  eandem  sententiam 
dicet. 

Two  things  are  clear  from  these  examples:  the  im- 
perative used  in  consecutive  discourse  and  not  having 
literal  imperative  force,  is  logically  incomplete,  and 
the  following  clause  may  and  usually  does  satisfy  that 
incompleteness.  The  precise  nature  of  the  relation 
between  the  clauses  can  be  clear  only  after  a  study  of 
more  instances  and  a  further  analysis  of  both  clauses, 
the  imperative  clause  and  the  clause  that  follows  it. 

That  there  is  a  distinctly  different  type  from  that 
already  illustrated  can  be  seen  from  such  an  example 
as  the  following:  Tac.  Hist.  IV.17.20:  Servirent  Suria 
Asiaque  et  suetus  regihiis  Oriens:  multos  adhuc  in 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  175 


Gallia  vivere  ante  tributa  genitos.  This  is  indirect 
discourse;  the  subjunctives  represent  imperatives  in 
the  direct.  That  Syria  and  the  East  are  playing  the 
slave  is  an  admitted  fact;  Civilis  is  not  urging  it. 
Clearly  the  imperative  is  not  literally  meant ;  its  actual 
force  is  not  clear  until  the  second  clause  shows  that  it 
was  permissive  in  a  hypothetical  sense.  The  contrasts 
between  Gallos  on  the  one  hand  and  Suria,  Asia,  Oriens 
on  the  other,  and  between  suetus  regihus  and  servirent 
on  the  one  hand  and  ante  tributa  genitos  on  the  other, 
really  define  the  relation.  Such  definition,  however, 
belongs  to  the  second  clause  and  has  been  considered 
in  the  chapter  on  Change.  At  present  the  noteworthy 
point  is  the  incompleteness  which  lies  in  the  imperative 
used  without  literal  jussive  force.  The  result  in  each 
case  is  fundamentally  the  same :  a  sense  of  irrelevancy, 
of  logical  incompleteness,  is  forced  upon  the  reader, 
turning  his  attention  forward  for  satisfaction.  There 
is  a  difference  in  detail  between  the  two  types  but 
fundamentally  they  are  the  same. 

The  development  of  this  particular  type  of  relation 
anticipated  by  incompleteness  is  not  hard  to  indicate. 
In  Plautus  and  Terence  the  literally  jussive  impera- 
tive is  very  frequently  followed  by  a  future  tense  indi- 
cating the  result  which  will  follow  the  performance  of 
the  command.  Impera:  imperium  exequar.  {Amph. 
956.)  Ausculta  ergo,  scies.  (^5m.  350.)  Oneris  quid- 
vis  impone:  ecferet.  {Phorm.  561.)  Sequere  me  intus 
cetera  audietis.  (Phorm.  765.)  These  are  familiar 
phrases.  The  result  is  often  marked  by  an  adverb,  as 
in  Bacchides  1023:  Em  specta!  turn  scies. 


176  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

This  turn  of  speech  is  extremely  common  and  recurs 
wherever  direct  conversation  is  reproduced.  For 
example,  in  the  incident  described  in  Livy  III.2.9,  in 
which  the  outposts  of  one  army  are  taunting  those  of 
the  other:  Crastino  die  oriente  sole  redite  in  aciem; 
erit  copia  pugnandi;  ne  timete.  Or  again,  Tac.  Ann. 
XL2.5:  "Interroga"  inquit,  ^'Suilli,  filios  tuos:  virum 
esse  me  fatehuntur." 

In  letters,  which  are  one  side  of  a  written  conversa- 
tion, this  use  is  common.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  II.25.2: 
Quare  advola;  aut  expedies  nos  omni  molestia  aut  eris 
particeps.  Pliny,  Epist.  IV. 4.2 :  Hunc  rogo  semestri 
trihunatu  splendidiorem  et  sihi  et  avunculo  suo  facias. 
Obligahis  me,  obligahis  Calvisium  nostrum,  etc.  It  has 
its  place  also  in  orations.  For  example,  Cicero,  hi  Cat. 
1.4.8:  Recognosce  tandem  mecum  noctem  illam  supe- 
riorem:  iam  intelleges  multo  me  vigilare  acrius  ad 
salutem  quam  te  ad  perniciem  rei  puhlicae. 

All  of  these  examples  show  actual  commands  in- 
tended to  be  taken  literally  even  if  not  actually  carried 
out.  And  furthermore  the  sense  is  complete  with  the 
close  of  the  imperative  clause :  there  is  nothing  to  make 
the  explanatory  second  clause  felt  as  a  necessity.  So 
in  English,  ' '  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that  labour  and  are 
heavy  laden,"  is  logically  a  complete  sentence.  The 
addition  of  "and  I  will  give  you  rest,"  adds  to  the 
meaning  distinctly,  but  it  was  not  required  by  any 
evident  logical  incompleteness  in  the  imperative  clause. 

When  the  command  is  one  to  mental  rather  than  to 
physical  action,  the  meaning  of  the  verb  usually  gives 
to  the  clause  a  tone  of  lesser  finality.    It  may  be  logic- 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  177 

ally  complete  and  yet  experience  teaches  us  to  find  in 
an  injunction  to  pay  attention  or  to  consider  some- 
thing, the  suggestion  of  some  result  to  follow  such 
consideration.  This  is  seen  in  the  example  above  from 
the  first  speech  against  Catiline.  So  also  Cicero,  Tusc. 
Disp.  IV.24.53:  Tracta  definitiones  fortitudinis :  intel- 
leges  earn  stomacho  non  egere.  Or,  in  poetry,  Ovid, 
A.  A.  III.115 :  Adspice  quae  nunc  sunt  Capitolia  quae- 
que  fuerunt:  Alterius  diceS'  ilia  fuisse  Jovis.  Or 
finally,  with  the  fortifying  adverb,  Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio 
25.79:  Quod  .  .  .  a  vobis  .  .  .  quaeso  ut  diligenter 
attendatis;  profecto  intelligetis  illim  ah  initio  cupi- 
ditatem  pugnasse. 

From  such  examples  it  is  no  long  step  to  instances 
which  show  distinct  anticipation.  The  difference  lies 
only  in  the  meaning  of  the  verb  considered  in  con- 
nection with  its  context.  The  anticipation  results 
from  the  fact  that  the  meaning  of  the  verb  prevents  us 
from  understanding  it  in  its  particular  setting  as  a 
literal  command  to  be  obeyed.  The  usage  of  an  actual 
jussive  imperative  followed  by  a  statement  of  the 
result  of  its  assumed  fulfilment  was  familiar  and  is 
readily  adopted  for  these  hypothetical  imperatives. 
The  imperative  may  be  one  which  might,  if  the  con- 
text were  different,  be  meant  as  an  actual  command, 
but  whose  presence  in  consecutive  discourse  prevents 
its  being  so  taken,  so  that  the  reader  is  forced  to  sus- 
pend his  judgment  as  to  its  actual  function  in  the  sen- 
tence. Or  it  may,  on  the  other  hand,  be  a  command 
quite  impossible  of  carrying  out.  Or  finally,  it  may  be 
absolutely  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  writer,  so  that  its 


178  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

intent  is  obviously  not  to  secure  compliance  with  what 
it  orders.  Any  one  of  these  three  types  produces  sus- 
pension of  judgment,  anticipation  of  a  clause  of  expla- 
nation to  follow,  due  to  the  logical  incompleteness  of 
the  imperative.  A  few  examples  of  each  will  be  suffi- 
cient. 

First  Type.  Cicero,  In  Verrem  ILIV.25.55:  Quern 
voles  e  conventu  Syracusano  virum  bonum  nominato ; 
producam.  Seneca,  De  Tranq.  An.  7.2:  deme  illis 
testes  spectatoresque,  non  delectahit  popina  secreta. 
Juvenal,  1.155:  Pone  Tigellinum,  taeda  lucehis  in  ilia, 
Qua  stantes  ardent,  qui  fixo  pectore  fumant.  Tac.  Ann. 
11.71.17:  Ostendite  populo  Romano  divi  Augusti  nep- 
tem  eandemque  coniugem  meam,  numerate  sex  liheros. 
Misericordia  cum  accusantibus  erit. 

Second  Type.  Cicero,  In  Verrem  II.I.23.61:  Unum 
ostende  in  tabulis  aut  tuis  aut  patris  tui  emptum  esse; 
vicisti.  (Cicero's  argument  has  already  shown  the 
impossibility  of  producing  one  such  citation.  The  use 
of  the  perfect  tense  is  a  rhetorical  device  to  show  the 
immediateness  of  the  hypothetical  result.)  Seneca, 
De  Vita  Beata  25.1:  Pone  in  opulentissima  me  domo, 
pone  aurmn  argentumque  ubi  in  promiscuo  usu  sit: 
non  suspiciam  me  ob  ista,  quae  etiam  si  apud  me,  extra 
me  tamen  sunt.  In  sublicium  pontem  me  transfer  et 
inter  egentes  abice:  non  ideo  tamen  me  despiciam,  quod 
in  illorum  numero  consedero,  qui  manum  ad  stipem 
porrigunt.  .  .  .  Pone  in  instrumentis  splendentibus  et 
delicato  apparatu:  nihilo  me  feliciorem  credam.  .  .  . 
Muta  stragula  mea:  nihilo  miserius  ero,  etc.  (This 
suggests  also  Horace,  Odes  1.22.17  ff.) 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  179 

Thikd  Type.  Plautus,  Rudens  1010:  Tange!  adfli- 
gam  ad  terram  te.  Seneca,  De  Vita  Beata  20.6 :  Gemite 
et  infelicem  linguam  honorum  exercete  convicio,  Mate, 
commordete:  citius  multo  frangetis  dentes  quam  im- 
primetis.  Seneca,  De  Vita  Beata  27.3 :  adsilite,  facite 
impetum:  ferendo  vos  vincam. 

Examples  might  be  multiplied,  but  the  principle  is 
evident:  the  use  of  an  imperative  which,  from  its 
meaning  in  its  particular  context,  cannot  be  taken  as 
a  command  to  be  actually  fulfilled  in  either  a  literal  or 
figurative  sense,  gives  to  its  clause  the  logical  incom- 
pleteness of  an  hypothesis,  and  the  reader  is  pre- 
pared in  advance  for  an  explanatory  completion  of 
the  thought  in  the  following  clause.  This  function  of 
the  imperative  is  made  more  obvious  by  the  use  of  spe- 
cial words,  modo  and  tantum,  just  as  quidem  and  sane 
were  found  marking  a  different  type  of  anticipation 
(cf.  p.  155).  It  will  be  seen  from  a  few  examples  that 
the  fundamental  principle  is  unchanged;  only  the  ex- 
pression of  it  is  made  more  clear  and  precise.  Plautus, 
Amph.  286:  Modo  sis  veni  hue:  invenies  infortunium. 
Livy  VI.18.7 :  Ostendite  modo  helium;  pacem  hahebitis. 
Videant  vos  paratos  ad  vim;  ius  ipsi  remittent. 
Cicero,  Ad  Att.  III.23.4:  modo  res  conficiatur,  ero  con- 
tentus.  Tac.  Ann.  11.15.10:  Meminissent  modo  avari- 
tiae  crudelitatis  superhiae;  aliud  sihi  reliquum  quam 
tenere  libertatem  aut  mori  ante  servitiumf  Martial 
V.1.9:  Tu  tantum  accipias:  ego  te  legisse  putaho. 

It  is  worth  noting  that,  with  modo  to  identify  it,  the 
imperative  is  used  in  the  second  clause  as  well  as  in  the 
first  in  a  hypothetical  sense.     Without  the  defining 


180  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

word  the  relation  would  not  be  clear.  Cicero,  Ad  Att. 
1.6.1 :  Non  committam  posthac,  ut  me  accusare  de  epis- 
tularum  neglegentia  possis;  tu  modo  videto,  in  tanto 
otio  ut  par  mihi  sis.  Pliny,  Epist.  III.17.2 :  Ego  viati- 
cum, ego  praemium  dabo,  nuntiat  mihi  modo  quod  opto. 
Seneca,  De  Ira  III.42.1 :  Poterimus  autem,  adnitamur 
modo.  Seneca,  De  Vita  Beata  1.4 :  sanahimur,  separe- 
mur  modo  a  coetu.  To  consider  the  m^odo  in  these  last 
three  instances  as  standing  for  dummodo  is  to  mis- 
understand the  underlying  force.  The  use  of  dum- 
modo originated  in  the  reinforcement  of  the  construc- 
tion with  dwn  by  the  addition  of  modo,  in  exactly  the 
way  that  it  is  here  added  to  this  particular  subjunctive 
usage  and  elsewhere  to  si  clauses. 

It  remains  to  consider  briefly  the  other  type  of  antici- 
patory imperative  indicated  above,  the  type  illus- 
trated by  the  citation:  Servirent  Suria  Asiaque  et 
suetus  regihus  Oriens:  multos  adhuc  in  Gallia  vivere 
ante  tributa  genitos.  The  key  to  its  understanding  is 
to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  imperative  is  incapable 
of  construction  as  a  command  in  any  true  sense.  For 
the  situation  is  one  that  even  the  speaker  admits. 
Even  hypothetically  there  is  no  order  to  do  anything : 
it  is  simply  an  admission  of  an  assumed  contention. 

Lane  (§  1553)  says:  The  subjunctive  of  desire  may 
be  used  to  denote  wil];ingness,  assumption,  or  conces- 
sion. And  Kuehner  (IIL47.10)  also  discusses  the  con- 
cessive use  of  the  independent  subjunctive.  Blase 
(H.  G.  der  lat.  S.  III.l.  §  60.3)  is  more  satisfactory: 
Der  Imperativ  dient  auch  dem  Ausdruck  des  Zuge- 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  181 

staendnisses.  And  he  goes  on  to  point  out  the  fact  that 
concession  is  usually  used  with  the  third  person  which 
was  lacking  in  the  imperative  formed  on  the  present 
stem.  Hence  the  frequency  of  the  so-called  future 
imperative  and  of  the  subjunctive  in  this  usage.  He 
calls  attention  also  to  the  discovery  of  Woelflflin  (Arch, 
f.  1.  Lex.  X.130)  that  licet  does  not  occur  in  the  Twelve 
Tables  but  that  the  positive  use  of  the  imperative  often 
has  a  permissive  rather  than  a  mandatory  tone. 

The  key  to  the  situation  seems  to  lie  in  this  last  fact. 
There  is  latent  in  all  the  jussive  forms  a  permissive 
tone.  The  situation  determines  whether  or  not  it  will 
become  prominent.  In  the  case  of  hypothetical  im- 
peratives if  there  is  no  special  sign,  the  natural  impulse 
seems  to  be  to  expect  a  relation  like  that  already 
studied,  an  hypothesis  whose  conclusion  is  to  follow. 
But  often  the  signs  of  irrelevant  emphasis  already 
examined  appear  with  the  imperative  and  the  in- 
stinctive anticipation  of  contrast  results,  usually  rein- 
forced by  some  element  of  the  second  clause,  the  result 
being  what  is  called  a  concessive  imperative.  The 
imperative  on  the  present  stem  was  the  predominant 
imperative  in  classical  Latin  and  the  absence  of  a  third 
person  necessitated  the  use  of  the  subjunctive  or  of 
the  less  common  imperative  in  -to.  Hence  the  classi- 
fication in  the  grammars. 

The  line  of  distinction  is  rarely  clear  between  the 
two  types  of  imperative  when  they  are  unsupported 
by  special  words.  And  this  is  natural,  for  there  is  no 
sharp  cut  line  between  the  ideas  which  they  represent, 
between  condition  and  concession.  For  instance.  Blase, 


182  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

quoting  Eberling,  cites  as  a  concessive  imperative, 
Horace,  Sat.  11.1.53:  Scaevae  vivacem  crede  nepoti 
Matrem:  nil  fiet  sceleris  pia  dextera.  I  doubt  very- 
much  whether  the  imperative  crede  suggests  more  than 
a  simple  hypothesis.  His  further  citation  of  Horace, 
Sat.  II.7.73  is  clearly  wrong :  Tolle  periclum,  lam  vaga 
prosiliet  frenis  natura  remotis.  Obviously  the  impera- 
tive indicates  an  hypothesis,  as  is  made  certain  by  iam. 
His  third  example,  Horace,  Sat.  II.3.69,  is  better  but 
not  good:  adde  Cicutae  Nodosi  tahulas  centum,  mille 
adde  catenas:  Effugiet  tamen  haec  sceleratus  vincula 
Proteus.  In  this  instance  the  first  clause  leaves  some 
doubt  in  the  mind,  a  doubt  dispelled  only  by  the  tamen 
in  the  second  clause. 

I  have  found  scarcely  any  good  cases  with  the  im- 
perative itself.  Perhaps  the  best  are  the  following  in 
which  the  verb  meaning  suggests  the  concession  of  a 
point.  Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp.  1.29.70 :  Sed  fac  igneam,  fac 
spirahilem;  nihil  ad  id  de  quo  agimus.  Quint.  Inst. 
Orat.  1.2.4:  Da  mentem  ad  peiora  facilem,  da  negle- 
gentiam  formandi  custodiendique  in  aetate  prima 
pudoris:  non  minor  em  flagitiis  occasionem  secreta 
praehuerint.  It  is  the  verb  meaning  which  keeps 
similar  phrases  with  esto  from  being  ambiguous.  For 
example,  Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp.  1.43.102:  Esto,  fortes  et 
duri  Spartiatae;  magnam  hahet  vim  rei  publicae 
disciplina. 

With  the  jussive  subjunctive  there  are  more  in- 
stances, but  the  range  is  not  wide;  sit  again  plays  a 
prominent  part,  and  in  such  cases  as  Seneca,  Ad 
Helviam  18.6,  other  means  support  the  suggestion  of 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  183 

the  imperative :  floreat  reliqua  in  suo  statu  turha:  nihil 
de  orhitate,  nihil  de  condicione  mea  querar,  etc.  But 
on  the  whole,  the  anticipation  is  not  clear :  the  specific 
type  of  hypothesis  is  not  sure  until  the  second  clause 
makes  it  so.  This  is  illustrated  by  Petronius  61: 
viderint:  narraho  tamen.  It  is  for  this  reason  that, 
first,  nearly  all  the  hypothetical  imperatives  that  antici- 
pate a  contrast,  in  other  words,  express  a  concession, 
are  accompanied  by  sane,  and  that,  second,  the  licet 
usage  had  such  a  development  in  spite  of  starting  so 
late. 

The  instances  with  sane  are  precisely  parallel  to  the 
other  clauses  with  sane  and  to  those  with  quidem 
already  studied:  the  injected  word  defines  the  par- 
ticular type  of  anticipation.  A  very  few  illustrations 
will  suffice.  Cicero,  De  Nat.  Deorum  1.24.68 :  Sint  sane 
ex  atomis:  non  igitur  aeterni.  Cicero,  Acad.  11.32.105 : 
Haec  si  vobis  non  prohamus,  sint  falsa  sane,  invidiosa 
certe  non  sunt.  Sallust,  Cat.  52.12 :  Sint  sane,  quoniam 
ita  se  mores  hahent,  liherales  ex  sociorum  fortunis,  sint 
misericordes  in  furihus  aerari:  ne  illi  sanguinem  nos- 
trum largiantur.  Seneca,  De  Otio  7.2:  Sit  sane  grande 
discrimen,  tamen  alterum  sine  altero  non  est.  Tac. 
Hist.  IV.58.22:  Sane  ego  displiceam;  sunt  alii  legati. 
The  same  effect  is  to  be  seen  in  the  use  of  forsitan  to 
point  the  coming  contrast,  as,  for  example.  Quint.  Inst. 
Orat.  1.12.8 :  Mirum  sit  forsitan,  sed  experimentis  de- 
prehendas.  Or  Cicero,  Brutus  8.33:  Quae  forsitan 
laus  sit;  verum  tamen  natura  magis  tum  casuque, 
numquam  aut  ratione  aliqua  aut  idla  observatione 
fiebat. 


184  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

Some  of  the  instances  already  cited  of  each  type  of 
anticipatory  imperative  have  shown  conjunctions  in- 
troducing the  second  clause.  As  in  all  other  sorts  of 
sentence  connection,  the  supplementary  use  of  con- 
junctions bears  out  the  results  of  the  investigation  of 
the  cases  without  conjunctions.  Et,  enim,  sed,  at, 
tamen  appear  with  the  anticipatory  imperatives.  The 
first  two  are  found  with  the  merely  hypothetical  cases, 
the  last  three  with  the  concessive.  Without  functional 
repetition,  it  was  found  (Chap.  Ill,  pp.  57  ff.),  et  regu- 
larly marks  a  clause  subsequent  logically  to  the  one 
preceding,  with  no  further  connotation.  It  can  there- 
fore be  used  after  hypothetical  imperatives  with  the 
clause  expressing  the  result  of  the  action  urged. 
Seneca,  De  Provid.  6.7:  Adtendite  modo  et  videbitis 
quam  brevis  ad  libertatem  et  quam  expedita  ducat  via. 
No  difference  is  apparent  between  this  and  the  in- 
stances cited  without  the  et.  Horace,  Epist.  1.18.107, 
uses  the  et  and  five  lines  below  obtains  the  same  results 
without  it.  Line  107:  Sit  mihi  quod  nunc  est,  etiam 
tninus,  et  mihi  vivam  Quod  superest  aevi  si  quid  super- 
esse  volunt  di.  Line  112 :  Det  vitam,  det  opes,  aequum 
mi  animum  ipse  parabo. 

When  the  second  clause  takes  on  more  of  an  explan- 
atory tone,  developing  the  purpose  of  the  irrelevant 
imperative,  enim  is  the  more  natural  conjunction.  It 
would  seem  that  nam  must  have  been  used  too, 
though  I  have  found  no  instances.  Cicero,  Pro  Rose. 
Com.  6.17:  Quae  cum  ita  sint,  quis  sit,  qui  socium 
fraudarit  et  fefellerit,  consideremus ;  dabit  enim  nobis 
iam  tacite  vita  acta  in  alterutram  partem  firmum  et 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  185 

grave  testimonium.  Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.24.112:  Perge 
vero,  inquit,  Crasse,  Mucins.  Istam  enim  culpam, 
quam  vereris,  ego  praestabo.  It  should  be  noted  that 
these  are  instances  which  are  scarcely  distinguishable 
from  ordinary  imperatives  without  anticipatory  force, 
almost  exactly  like  the  many  instances  in  Cato  of  which 
the  following  will  serve  as  the  type.  Cato,  R.R.  V.7 : 
Opera  omnia  mature  conficias  face.  Nam  res  rustica 
sic  est,  si  unam  rem  sero  feceris,  omnia  opera  sero 
fades. 

Passing  to  the  cases  of  imperatives  that  express  the 
admission  or  concession  of  some  fact,  it  is  of  course  the 
adversative  conjunctions  which  are  to  be  expected,  as 
in  all  cases  of  contrast,  whether  anticipated  or  not. 
But  once  more  they  are  purely  supplementary.  Cicero, 
In  Q.  Caec.  15.47:  Esto;  ipse  nihil  est,  nihil  potest;  at 
venit  paratus  cum  suhscriptorihus  exercitatis  et 
disertis.  Horace,  Sat.  II.1.83 :  Esto,  si  quis  mala;  sed 
bona  si  quis  ludice  condiderit  laudatus  Caesaref 
Martial  V.15.6 :  Non  prosint  sane,  me  tamen  ista 
iuvant.  Quint.  Inst.  Orat.  1.12.8:  Mirum  sit  forsitan, 
sed  experiments  deprehendas.  Such  cases,  in  their 
anticipation  of  contrast,  are  quite  like  instances  of 
fateor,  the  specific  expression  of  concession.  For 
example,  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  II.1.5 :  Non  consulare,  inquies, 
dictum.  Fateor:  sed  ego  illam  odi  male  consularem, 
Pliny,  Epist.  II.5.10:  Fateor:  in  praesentia  tamen  et 
ista  tibi  familiariora  fient  et  .  .  .  etc. 

Two  very  similar  types  of  usage  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered with  the  hypothetical  imperative.  One  of 
them  is  the  hypothetical  use  of  an  indicative,  the  other 


186  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

the  licet  usage.  In  both  types  the  underlying  element 
which  gives  to  the  clause  in  which  they  occur  an  antici- 
patory force,  is  the  irrelevance  of  the  statement  itself 
which  the  clause  makes,  or  of  the  emphasis  on  the  per- 
missive tone.  They  are  therefore  similar  in  the  funda- 
mental element  which  gives  them  force  and  they  prove 
to  be  similar  in  the  effect  produced,  the  one  to  the  first 
type  of  hypothetical  imperative,  the  other  to  the 
second. 

Take,  for  example,  such  a  statement  as  fecit  assem 
(Petronius,  61,  line  16).  Occurring  in  the  description 
of  a  man,  this  is  entirely  irrelevant.  It  cannot  be  a 
mere  statement  of  fact  for  it  would  be  quite  meaning- 
less in  the  context.  The  following  clause,  semissem 
habui,  shows  it  to  have  been  a  hypothetical  statement. 
A  succession  of  such  instances  occurs  in  Seneca,  De 
Tranq.  An.  11.10  if.  beginning  with  locuples  es,  a  per- 
fectly irrelevant  statement  not  understood  until  de- 
fined by  what  follows:  numquid  divitior  Pompeiof 
And  a  little  later:  Honoribus  summis  functus  es:  num- 
quid aut  tarn  magnis  aut  tarn  insperatis  aut  tarn  uni- 
versis  quam  Seianus?  And  again:  Rex  es:  non  ad 
Croesum  te  niittam  .  .  .  etc.  A  good  illustration  is 
Cicero,  De  Finihus  IL9.27 :  Confuse  loquitur;  gerendus 
est  mos,  etc.  Many  more  might  be  given ;  one  will  do 
to  represent  the  many  occurrences  in  poetry.  Juvenal, 
III.IOO  if. :  Rides,  maiore  cacchino  Concutitur;  fiet,  si 
lacrimas  conspexit  amici,  Nee  dolet;  igniculum  hrumae 
si  tempore  poscas,  Accipit  endromidem;  si  dixeris 
"aestuo"  sudat.  One  of  the  commonest  forms  in 
which  this  usage  appears  is  with  the  verb  in  the  future 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  187 

perfect,  a  future  hypothesis:  Cicero,  In  Verrem 
II.I.5.12 :  Ex  hoc  quoque  evaserit;  profiscar  eo,  quo  me 
iam  pridem  vocat  populus  Romanus.  Martial  III.78.7 : 
"Si  nihil  hinc  veniet,  pangentur  carmina  nobis;  Audi- 
eris,  dices  esse  Maronis  opus."  Et  may  be  used  in  the 
same  supplementary  fashion  as  with  the  imperatives. 
Seneca,  De  Tranq.  An.  11.3:  Appelaverit  natura  quae 
prior  nobis  crediderit,  et  huic  dicemus:  etc. 

The  clauses  with  licet  are  like  the  other  type  of 
imperative,  that  with  permissive  force,  as  the  meaning 
of  licet  indicates.  A  permissive  clause  is  rarely  rele- 
vant in  consecutive  discourse  except  as  anticipating  a 
contrast.  So  true  is  this  that  licet  comes  to  be  looked 
on  as  merely  a  conjunction.  But  the  origin  of  the 
usage  must  have  been  the  use  of  licet  to  fill  the  want 
felt  for  a  third  person  permissive  imperative,  which, 
by  its  meaning,  it  so  readily  fills.  Instances  are  too 
common  and  too  familiar  to  require  more  than  passing 
notice.  Cicero,  Pro  A.  Caecina  14.41:  "Queramur," 
inquit,  "licet;  tamen  hoc  interdicto  Aebutius  non 
tenetur."  Seneca,  Ad  Helviam  10.6:  Licet  itaque 
augeatis  census,  promoveatis  fines:  numquam  tamen 
corpora  vestra  laxabitis.  The  relation  of  the  licet  to 
the  subjunctive  is  not  under  discussion  at  present,  but 
the  relation  of  the  whole  licet  clause  to  the  one  that 
follows. 

The  same  characteristic  element  is  behind  the  con- 
cessive use  of  quamvis.  E.g.,  Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp. 
11.25.61 :  Nihil  agis,  dolor!  quamvis  sis  molestus,  num- 
quam te  esse  confitebor  malum.    It  is  the  emphasis  on 


188  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

the  imperative  which  anticipates  the  contrasted  result 
of  the  hypothesis. 

A  glance  in  retrospect  at  the  instances  of  anticipa- 
tory incompleteness  shows  that  this  connective  ele- 
ment, whether  lying  in  the  meaning  or  in  the  function 
of  the  word,  marks  the  clause  in  which  it  stands  as 
logically  antecedent  to  the  clause  following.  By  thus 
conspicuously  marking  its  own  clause  as  logically  ante- 
cedent, it  emphatically  draws  attention  to  the  follow- 
ing clause  as  the  more  important,  logically,  of  the  two. 
This  accounts  for  the  development  of  subordinate 
clauses  to  do  much  of  the  work  which  might  have  been 
carried  by  these  incomplete  clauses,  resulting  in  the 
tendency  to  look  upon  the  more  fundamental  and  nor- 
mal types  as  an  exceptional  usage  and  as  substitutes 
for  the  types  with  subordinating  conjunctions.  The 
truth  is  that  the  present  usage  does  not  differ,  in  the 
kind  of  relation  expressed,  from  the  retrospective 
incompleteness  already  studied,  but  by  being  anticipa- 
tory it  puts  a  stronger  emphasis  on  the  logical  sub- 
ordination of  one  sentence  to  the  other.  This  is  only  a 
corollary  to  the  general  truth  that  expression  of  rela- 
tion in  the  first  sentence  is  a  conscious  rhetorical  de- 
velopment and  therefore  a  natural  step  in  the  rhetori- 
cal development  of  subordination. 

Analysis  shows  three  main  divisions  into  which  these 
clauses,  logically  incomplete,  naturally  fall.  The  lines 
of  demarcation  are  not  sharp  but  the  prominent  char- 
acteristics of  each  division  are  distinct. 

The  first  embraces  those  instances  which  are  identi- 


ANTICIPATORY  INCOMPLETENESS  189 

cal  with  the  cases  of  retrospective  incompleteness 
except  for  the  fact  that  they  occur  in  the  first  instead 
of  in  the  second  of  two  adjacent  clauses  and  therefore 
point  in  the  opposite  direction.  They  are  quite  as 
inconclusive,  so  far  as  definition  of  relation  is  con- 
cerned, as  were  the  retrospective  instances.  They 
merely  indicate  the  more  important  of  the  two  clauses 
as  being  the  one  following:  the  precise  definition  of 
relation  is  determined  by  other  and  different  means, 
ranging  from  the  meaning  of  the  clause  to  the  mechani- 
cal indication  by  means  of  conjunctions.  In  this  group 
are  included  the  instances  in  which  semantic  incom- 
pleteness is  evidenced  in  the  use  of  demonstratives  and 
conjunctions  and  incomplete  verbs  as  well  as  the  in- 
stances of  functional  incompleteness  inherent  in  the 
infinitive,  the  subjunctive  and  the  incomplete  tenses. 

The  second  group  comprises  instances  in  which  the 
incompleteness  consists  in  an  emphasis,  marked  but 
irrelevant,  or  at  least  without  meaning  until  a  further 
statement  has  followed.  Such  instances  give  to  the 
clause  following  a  distinctly  adversative  tone.  So  long 
as  the  incompleteness  is  semantic  this  is  about  all  that 
it  suggests,  but  when  it  is  functional  and  lies  therefore 
in  some  hortatory  expression,  it  is  sufiiciently  promi- 
nent further  to  subordinate  its  own  clause  in  tone  and 
to  suggest  with  more  or  less  distinctness  a  concessive 
relation  toward  the  clause  following.  This  group  in- 
cludes the  instances  of  the  use  of  comparatives,  of 
selective  words  such  as  ceterus,  of  emphasizing  words 
such  as  quidem,  of  irrelevant  negative  statements,  of 
words    unexpectedly    emphasized    by    position,    and, 


190  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

finally,  of  anticipatory  imperatives  marked  by  empha- 
sis, with  or  without  licet  or  quamvis. 

In  the  instances  of  the  third  group  the  incomplete- 
ness consists  in  a  general  vagueness  or  irrelevance  of 
statement  without  however  any  marked  emphasis. 
When  the  incompleteness  thus  effected  is  semantic  it 
results  in  making  more  prominent  the  following  clause, 
which  takes  the  form  of  an  explanation  of  the  vague- 
ness or  apparent  irrelevance.  When  the  incomplete- 
ness is  functional  the  effect  is  somewhat  more  evident 
in  the  first  clause,  as  was  true  also  in  the  preceding 
group.  In  the  present  case  however,  it  makes  the  first 
clause  hypothetical,  as  expressing  a  contingency  of 
which  the  statement  of  the  second  clause  is  the  logical 
explanatory  result.  In  this  group  fall  the  instances  of 
words  with  a  significantly  vague  meaning,  or  impera- 
tives without  permissive  tone,  and  of  hypothetical 
indicatives. 


CHAPTER  VII 
PARENTHETIC  INCOMPLETENESS 


( t 


'Ride,  si  sapis,  0  puella,  ride"  Paelignus,  puto, 
dixerat  poeta.  (Martial  11.41.1.)  Et  quaeso  con- 
siderate, quam  convorsa  rerum  natura  sit.  (Sallust, 
Orat.  Phil  13.)    I  licet.    (Plautus,  Most.  848.) 

Puto,  quaeso  and  licet  are  none  of  them  syntactically 
related  to  the  sentences  in  which  they  stand.  They 
represent  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  most  im- 
portant classes  of  sentence  groups  in  which  the  element 
of  incompleteness  is  effective.  The  group  is  composed 
of  verbs,  principally  of  saying  or  thinking,  injected 
parenthetically  into  sentences  quite  complete  syntac- 
tically (and  often  logically)  without  them.  In  a 
general  way  they  are  not  unlike  all  parenthetical  sen- 
tences and  it  will  be  perhaps  the  best  approach  to  their 
study  to  notice  a  few  familiar  types  of  parenthesis. 

Cicero,  Brutus  82.283 :  Sed  ad  Calvum — is  enim 
nobis  erat  propositus — revertamur.  Livy  XXXI.45. 
10:  Ad  Prasias — continentis  Atticae  is  locus  est — 
Issaeorum  viginti  lemhi  classi  Romanorum  adiuncti 
sunt.  Tac.  Hist.  II.24.7:  Ad  duodecimum  a  Cremona 
{locus  Castrorum  vocatur)  ferocissimos  auxiliarium 
.  .  .  componit.  Tac.  Agr.  22.2:  vastatis  usque  ad 
Tanaum  {aestuario  nomen  est)  nationihus.  Livy 
lXII.5.9  :  auxilia  .  .  .  ad  occupandos  quae  ad  Anti- 


192  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

goneam  fauces  sunt — Stena  vocant  Graeci — misit. 
Cicero,  In  Cat.  11.8.18:  Horum  hominum  species  est 
honestissima  {sunt  enim  locupletes),  voluntas  vero  et 
causa  inpudentissima.  Tac.  Hist.  III.21.9:  dein  sep- 
tima  Claudiana  agresti  fossa  {ita  locus  erat)  prae- 
munita.  These  parenthetical  statements  all  have  an 
element  in  common :  alone  and  for  themselves,  they  are 
logically  incomplete.  Whether  this  is  brought  about 
by  the  force  of  a  demonstrative,  pointing  to  something 
outside  the  clause,  or  by  that  of  an  empty  noun  like 
locus,  or  by  the  assumption  of  object  or  subject  from 
the  main  sentence,  the  results  are  the  same.  The 
parenthetical  clause  has  no  syntactical  relation  to  the 
sentence  into  which  it  intrudes;  logically  it  has  close 
relation.  Often,  as  in  two  of  these  instances,  a  con- 
junction adds  precision  to  the  expression  of  relation. 
The  logical  incompleteness  may  be  due  merely  to  the 
irrelevance  of  the  parenthetical  statement  taken  apart 
from  the  main  sentence,  as  in  Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  II.4.1 : 
Massilienses  .  .  .  naves  refecerant  summaque  indus- 
tria  armaverant — remigium,  guhernatorum  magna 
copia  suppetehat — piscatoriasque  adiecerant.  Such 
parentheses  are  very  often  made  more  precise  by  the 
use  of  quippe  or  sane. 

Now,  except  for  the  kind  of  sentence  in  which  they 
occur,  and  the  kind  of  verb  used,  there  is  little  dif- 
ference between  these  parentheses  and  the  interjected 
verbs  noted  above.  Puto,  quaeso,  licet  are  no  more 
syntactically  incomplete  than  the  longer  parentheses 
and  logically  they  are  quite  as  much  so.  They  form  a 
special  group  leading  to  distinct  syntactical  develop- 


PARENTHETIC  INCOMPLETENESS  193 

ments  because  of  one  point  in  which  they  are  all  alike : 
they  are  used  to  give  tone  to  the  statement  or  question 
or  command  into  which  they  are  injected.  They  are 
not  explanations.  They  are  expressions  usually  of  the 
speaker's  own  personal  attitude  toward  the  statement 
or  question  or  command;  otherwise,  of  some  im- 
personal factor  which  gives  to  the  main  sentence  its 
tone.  For  example,  notice  the  variations  of  tone  in 
the  command,  ite,  produced  by  the  addition  of  iubeo, 
ohsecro,  censeo,  licet,  or  necesse  est. 

To  get  a  clear  impression  of  the  effect  of  these  in- 
jected words,  the  first  step  is  to  note  the  determining 
force  exercised  upon  them  by  the  type  of  sentence  into 
which  they  are  injected.  If  it  is  a  statement,  they  are 
restricted  to  one  set  of  words,  if  a  question,  to  another, 
if  it  is  a  command,  or  an  exhortation,  to  a  third. 
Quaeso,  rogo,  ohsecro,  and  the  like,  with  their  twofold 
meanings,  appear  both  with  questions  and  with  im- 
perative sentences. 

Statements  should  be  considered  first.  The  injected 
words  used  with  statements  might  be  grouped  in  either 
of  two  ways :  first,  according  to  the  mode  in  which  they 
appear,  indicative,  subjunctive,  or  imperative;  or, 
second,  according  to  the  type  of  verb.  The  latter  is,  I 
think,  the  more  valuable  grouping.  There  are,  in  the 
first  place,  numerous  verbs  of  saying.  Cicero,  Pro 
Quinctio  11.37:  In  hanc  rem  te,  te,  inquam,  testem, 
Naevi,  citabo.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  11.11. 1:  Narro  tibi, 
plane  relegatus  mihi  videor.  The  purpose  of  these 
inserted  verbs  seems  to  be  to  lay  emphasis  on  the  state- 


194  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

ment  made,  to  show  the  speaker's  earnestness  in  mak- 
ing it.  It  is  obvious  without  them  that  the  statement  is 
the  speaker's  own  but  the  introduction  of  the  first 
person  of  the  verb  of  saying  emphasizes  this.  Often 
however  it  has  modifiers  which  give  to  it  a  different 
tone.  Pliny,  Epist.  IV.17.6:  Adulescentulus  eram,  et 
iam  mihi  ah  illo  honor  atque  etiam  {audebo  dicere) 
reverentia  ut  aequali  hahehatur.  The  tone  is  almost 
apologetic,  due  to  the  meaning  of  the  verb,  audeo. 
Compare  with  this,  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Com.  6.17:  qui 
medius  fidius  {audacter  dico)  plus  fidei  quam  artis 
.  .  .  possidet  in  se.  Cicero,  De  Orat.  1.21.97 :  quo  in 
genere  tu,  Antoni, — vere  loquar — nunquam  mihi  .  .  . 
defuisti.  Or  again,  such  extended  phrases  as  Pliny, 
Epist.  1.2.3 :  Nee  materia  ipsa  huic  {vereor,  ne  improbe 
dicam)  aemulationi  repugnavit.  Cicero,  In  Cat.  1.1.3 : 
Nos,  nos,  dico  aperte,  consules  desumus,  and  In  Cat. 
1.4.8:  Bieo  te  priore  nocte  venisse  inter  falearios  {non 
agam  obseure)  in  M.  Laeeae  domum,  are  further  varia- 
tions. Finally,  the  subjunctive  mode  gives  a  shading 
of  tone  to  the  injected  verb,  a  tone  of  less  finality 
usually  reinforced  by  paene  or  prope.  The  origin  of 
this  tone  in  the  subjunctive,  sometimes  miscalled 
"modesty,"  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  original 
"will"  notion  behind  the  mode.  In  a  word  of  saying 
this  cannot,  in  the  first  person,  express  much  actual 
will,  but,  by  analogy  with  other  verbs,  in  which  it 
shades  from  will  into  simple  futurity,  the  subjunctive 
dieam  has  a  less  positive  tone  than  dieo.  Cicero,  Pro 
Quinetio  13.44 :  iam  tu  potes  liheratus  discedere  moles- 
tia,  prope  dieam,  non  minore  quam  Quinctius. 


PARENTHETIC  INCOMPLETENESS  195 

With  the  instances  of  verbs  of  saying  inserted  in 
declarative  sentences,  there  is  no  play  for  the  impera- 
tive mode;  at  least,  imperatives  do  not  appear  so  far 
as  I  have  noted.  Another  use  of  dico  should,  however, 
be  noticed  in  passing :  that  in  which  it  appears  with  an 
object  which  is  also  in  apposition  with  a  noun  in  the 
main  sentence.  Pliny,  Epist.  1.16.1:  Amaham  Pom- 
peium  Saturninum  {hunc  dico  nostrum)  laudebamque 
eius  ingenium.  Seneca,  De  Provid.  1.3 :  Ne  ilia  quidem 
quae  videntur  confusa  et  incerta,  pluvias  dico  nuhesque 
etc.  Such  instances  are,  however,  analogous  to  the 
general  type  of  parenthesis  illustrated  above  and  not 
to  the  tone  words  at  present  under  discussion.  They 
are  explanatory  parentheses  pure  and  simple. 

The  interjection  of  the  second  or  third  person  as  well 
as  the  first  to  mark  simple  quotation,  as  inquit,  inquis, 
dixit,  has  been  discussed  before.  (Cf.  Chap.  VI,  pp. 
148  ff.)  The  principle  is  the  same  as  that  behind  these 
parenthetical  verbs  of  saying  interjected  into  non- 
quoted  statements:  the  insertion  marks  the  speaker's 
attitude  toward  what  he  is  saying,  in  this  case  attri- 
butes it  to  someone  else.  If  the  quotation  is  hypo- 
thetical, inquies,  dicet  aliquis,  or  some  similar  phrase 
marks  it  as  such. 

The  importance  of  the  meaning  of  the  verb  of 
saying  is  shown  by  the  influence  of  such  a  word  as 
fateor  or  its  equivalent  in  a  declarative  sentence.  By 
its  very  meaning  it  introduces  the  notion  of  concession 
and  its  sentence  is  regularly  followed  by  one  introduced 
by  an  adversative  conjunction.  But  this  influence  is 
exerted  on  the  sentence  in  w^hich  it  stands  as  a  whole. 


196  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

The  relation  of  the  fateor  (as  in  Terence,  Ad.  188: 
leno  sum,  pernicies  communis  fateor,  adulescentium,) 
or  non  nego  (as  in  Terence,  Ad.  798:  factum  est,  non 
nego,)  to  the  clause  in  which  it  stands  is  the  same  as 
that  of  dico,  inquis,  and  the  like. 

Of  the  various  verbs  of  thinking  and  other  mental 
actions  little  need  be  added.  They  are  fundamentally 
like  the  verbs  of  saying  and  they  simply  give  shades  of 
meaning  to  the  sentences  in  which  they  stand.  For 
example,  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  28.76 :  Litteras,  credo, 
misit  alicui  sicario,  qui  Romae  noverat  neminem. 
Cicero,  Ad  Att.  IV.2.7:  Domus  aedificatur,  scis,  quo 
sumptu  qua  molestia.  Martial,  Epist.  ad  Lib.  II.  line 
11 :  Puto  me  hercules,  Deciane,  verum  dicis.  Tac.  Dial. 
37.25 :  Non,  opinor,  Demosthenem  orationes  inlustrant 
quas  adversus  tutores  suos  composuit.  These  words 
may  be  in  the  imperative ;  they  still  mark  the  attitude 
of  the  speaker.  Seneca,  Ad  Polyh.  9.9 :  Est,  mihi  crede, 
magna  felicitas  in  ipsa  necessitate  moriendi.  Cicero, 
Ad  Att.  IX.6.4:  Non  sum,  inquam,  mihi  crede,  mentis 
compos.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  IX.7.4:  sed  agetur,  memento, 
foedissime. 

The  verbs  used  parenthetically  with  questions  are 
naturally,  not  verbs  of  saying  or  thinking,  but  verbs  of 
asking,  except  when  they  are  in  the  imperative,  as,  for 
example,  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  IL7.2:  Narra  mihi,  reges 
Armenii  patricios  resalutare  non  solentf  The  more 
common  type  is  illustrated  by  the  following  instances : 
Seneca,  De  Vita  Beata  7.1:  Quid  est,  oro  vos,  cur 
separari  voluptas  a  virtute  non  possitf    Cicero,  Pro 


PARENTHETIC  INCOMPLETENESS  197 

Rose.  Am.  40.118:  Quid  tandem,  quaeso,  iudicesf 
Cicero,  Ad  Att.  IIL9.2;  Obsecro,  mi  Pomponi,  nondum 
perspicis  quorum  opera  .  .  .  perierimusf  Suetonius, 
Claudius  40:  rogo  vos,  quis  potest  sine  offula  viveref 
Plautus,  Ps.  971 :  ecquem  in  angiporto  hoc  hominem  tu 
novistif  te  rogo.  Cicero,  Pro  L.  Murena  38.81 :  Te,  te 
appello,  Cato;  nonne  prospicis  tempestatem  anni  tuif 
The  rather  colourless  age  or  agedum  is  not  uncommon 
in  somewhat  urgent  questions,  especially  in  Seneca; 
for  example.  Be  Vita  Beata  11.1 :  Age,  non  vides  quam 
multa  suasura  sitf  Terence,  Andria  598:  age  igitur, 
uhi  nunc  est  ipsusf  This  however  is  little  more  than  an 
interjection  and  seems  never  to  have  developed  into 
anything  else. 

When  it  comes  to  the  use  of  interjected  verbs  with 
the  imperative  mode,  all  the  types  of  verbs  which  have 
been  found  with  declarative  and  interrogative  sen- 
tences reappear,  and  there  is  also  a  further  group 
peculiar  to  the  imperative  sentences.  For  instance, 
Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  25.79 :  Die,  inquam,  diem.  Seneca, 
Ad  Marciam  12.4:  Circumspice,  inquam,  omnis.  Plau- 
tus, Men.  696 :  heus  tu,  tihi  dico,  mane,  redi.  Cicero,  In 
Cat.  1.3.6 :  Muta  iam  istam  mentem,  mihi  crede.  These 
sentences  all  show  inserted  verbs  which  are  used  also 
with  declarative  sentences,  and  they  are  really  used  in 
the  same  way,  to  give  a  tone  of  earnestness  to  the 
sentence.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  use  of  quaeso  and 
rogo  with  the  imperative,  there  is  only  apparent  simi- 
larity with  their  use  in  interrogative  sentences.  For, 
with  an  imperative  sentence,  quaeso  and  rogo  have  a 


198  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

different  meaning,  urging  rather  than  asking.  For 
example,  Cicero,  In  Cat.  1.11.27 :  percipite,  quaeso, 
dilig enter  quae  dicam.  (This  influence  of  the  impera- 
tive to  modify  the  meaning  of  the  injected  verb  is  seen 
in  such  sentences  as  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  IX.6.2 :  sed,  opinor, 
quiescamus.)  Finally  the  colourless  age,  agedum 
appears  as  an  interjection  to  give  emphasis  to  the 
command,  as  in  Seneca,  Ad  Polyh.  4.2:  Omnis  agedum 
mortalis  circumspice.  Plautus,  Cist.  544:  Age  perge, 
quaeso.  Terence,  Ad.  937 :  age  da  veniam  filio.  Livy 
XXXVIII.47.11 :  mittite,  agedum,  legates. 

Rogo  and  quaeso,  in  their  meaning  of  ''urge"  or 
"beg,"  belong  to  the  third  group  of  words  used  with 
the  imperative,  the  most  important  group.  Like  the 
verbs  of  mental  action  with  declarative  sentences,  the 
words  of  this  group  are  used  to  give  shades  of  tone  to 
the  imperative.  They  are  either  verbs  of  warning, 
ordering,  asking,  and  the  like  in  the  first  person,  or 
else  impersonals,  giving  tone  in  a  more  indirect  way: 
opus  est,  licet,  and  the  like.  The  most  frequent  are 
quaeso  and  obsecro;  none  are  very  common.  For  early 
Latin,  they  are  collected  in  Bennett's  Syntax.  A  few 
examples  will  suffice  here.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  IV.6.4: 
rogo,  fac  ut  sumas.  Plautus,  Amph.  765 :  mane,  mane, 
obsecro  te.  (The  doubling  of  the  imperative  has  the 
same  force  as  the  injection  of  the  obsecro.)  Cicero, 
Pro  Rose.  Com.  7.20 :  Oro  atque  obsecro  vos,  qui  nostis, 
vitam  inter  se  utriusque  conferte.  Seneca,  Oed.  864: 
ignosce,  quaeso.  This  is  heightened  in  Terence,  H.  T. 
1052,  to  age,  quaeso,  ne  tarn  offirma  te.    Plautus,  Most. 


PARENTHETIC  INCOMPLETENESS  199 

848 :  i  licet.  Pliny,  Epist.  IX.26.7 :  Sed  opus  est  exam- 
ine et  libra. 

The  presence  or  absence  of  the  personal  object  with 
the  oro  or  ohsecro  has  no  importance,  I  think.  The 
incompleteness  lies  in  the  meaning  of  the  verb  which 
requires  some  sort  of  object  clause  to  give  it  satis- 
factory meaning.  Somewhat  different  is  amo  te  or 
amabo  te.  In  this  phrase  it  is  the  complete  irrelevance 
of  the  statement  except  as  taken  with  the  sentence  into 
which  it  is  interjected  which  gives  it  a  hypothetical 
sense.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  future  form  which 
I  should  suspect  was  the  earlier.  Cicero,  Ad  Att. 
II.7.3 :  Incende  hominem,  amabo  te,  quod  potes.  Origi- 
nally this  was  undoubtedly  the  equivalent  of  a  condi- 
tional sentence  although  the  amo  te,  amabo  te,  came  to 
be  no  more  than  an  interjection  like  age,  agite,  agedum. 

The  great  importance  of  the  injected  verbs  with  the 
imperative,  lies  in  the  light  their  use  throws  on  the 
same  usage  with  the  subjunctive.  The  subjunctive  was 
originally  an  independent  mode  with  an  indefinite 
notion  of  will  which  lent  itself  to  the  imperative  uses 
and  was  often  accompanied  by  the  same  interjected 
verbs,  giving  tone  to  the  subjunctive.  It  seems  certain 
that  that  tone  was  originally  not  at  all  precise  in  the 
subjunctive  itself.  It  depended  much  on  the  person 
of  the  verb.  In  the  first  singular  the  idea  of  will 
appears  as  determination  of  various  degrees,  all  the 
range  from  ''I  shall"  to  '*I  will."  There  can  be  no 
notion  of  imposed  will,  of  command,  when  the  speaker 
and  the  person  addressed  are  one.  In  the  first  plural 
there  is  a  change.    The  will  notion  applies  not  only  to 


200  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

the  speaker  but  to  others  as  well,  so  that  there  is  not 
only  the  notion  of  determination  but  of  command  com- 
bined with  it.  (Hence  volo  and  opinor  both  find  place 
with  the  hortatory  first  plural.)  In  the  second  person 
the  command  is  direct,  in  the  third  indirect;  in  both 
cases  it  is  open  to  a  wide  range  of  interpretation,  from 
humble  request  to  arbitrary  order. 

For  Plautus  these  cases  are  thoroughly  collected  by 
Morris^  and  conveniently  arranged.  There  is  little  to 
add  save  instances  from  later  Latin  bearing  out  the 
deductions  from  Plautus.  A  few  conclusions  from  the 
results  of  Morris's  work  are  necessary  however  for  an 
understanding  of  the  usage.  The  second  person 
instances  show  the  same  modifying  verbs  interjected 
into  the  sentences  that  appeared  with  the  imperative, 
but  distinctly  more.  The  difference  seems  to  be  this. 
The  injected  verbs  used  with  the  imperative  are  either 
like  inquam,  dico  (rare),  emphasizing  the  command,  or 
else  they  are  words  of  request  or  beseeching,  indicating 
that  the  imperative  is  not  being  used  in  its  normal 
fashion  as  an  abrupt  command  by  one  who  has  the 
right  to  order:  oro,  rogo,  quaeso,  ohsecro,  opus  est, 
amaho.  With  the  subjunctive,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
range  is  much  wider:  the  injected  verb  may  indicate 
wish  {volo,  malo,  nolo),  request  {quaeso,  oro,  ohsecro), 
advice  {censeo,  moneo),  command  {iuheo,  interdico), 
explanation  {meliust,  optimumst),  and  so  on.  The 
notion  of  will  was  precise  and  narrow  in  the  imperative 
and  modified  by  the  injected  verbs ;  in  the  subjunctive 

1  The  Subjunctive  in  Independent  Sentences  in  Plautus.     A.  J.  P. 
XVIII.  (1897),  Nos.  70,  71,  72. 


PARENTHETIC  INCOMPLETENESS  201 


it  is  general  and  indefinite  and  is  determined  more 
precisely  by  the  words  injected.  This  usage  never 
became  much  more  precise  in  later  Latin.  Censeo 
desistas  in  Cicero  (In  Verrem  II.V.68.174)  may  have 
been  looked  on  as  a  subordinate  subjunctive  with  a 
verb  of  advising.  But  it  is  hard  to  see  how  Maneat, 
quaeso,  duretque  gentibus  (Tac.  Germ.  33.7)  can  have 
been  so  regarded,  nor  does  scias  licet  (Seneca,  Be 
Tranq.  An.  8.3)  seem  essentially  different  from  i  licet. 
The  fact  that,  with  the  first  singular,  volo  does  not 
occur  (it  would  be  tautological),  whereas  it  does  appear 
with  considerable  frequency  with  the  other  persons 
(including  the  first  plural),  in  which  others  than  the 
speaker  are  addressed,  indicates  the  defining  nature  of 
the  injected  verb. 

In  treating  the  independent  subjunctives  without 
interjected  words,  Morris  draws  attention  to  the  fact 
that  any  expression  of  will  involves  a  speaker,  a  wilier, 
a  hearer,  an  actor.  In  declarative  sentences  with  the 
verb  in  the  first  person  these  are  all  four  identical ;  in 
the  interrogative,  the  speaker  and  actor  are  one,  the 
hearer  and  wilier  another.  In  sentences  with  the  verb 
in  the  second  person,  speaker  and  wilier  are  one, 
hearer  and  actor  another.  With  the  verb  in  the  third 
person,  speaker  and  wilier  are  usually  one,  but  hearer 
and  actor  are  distinct.  Now  these  relations  have  an 
important  bearing  on  the  injected  words.  They 
explain  why,  in  declarative  sentences  with  the  verb  in 
the  first  person,  not  only  is  volo  not  to  be  found,  but 
no  verbs  in  the  first  person  are  injected.  Also  why 
such  verbs  are  almost  the  only  ones  used  in  the  case 


202  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

of  the  direct  relation  established  between  two  persons 
in  the  instances  of  subjunctives  in  the  second  person. 
And  why  the  interjected  words  are  almost  evenly- 
divided  between  imperatives  and  first  persons  in  the 
examples  with  the  third  person. 

Further  discussion  will  be  more  clear  with  a  number 
of  examples  given.  They  are  divided  first  according  to 
the  person  of  the  subjunctive  and  arranged  within 
groups  according  to  the  form  of  the  injected  word.  The 
cases  from  Plautus  and  Terence  are  taken  from  Morris 
and  Durham.^ 

Subjunctive  in  First  Person. 

Plautus,  Ba.  707 :  volo  agamus.  Plautus,  Merc.  1015 : 
dicamus  censeo.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  II.5.1:  Sed,  opinor, 
excipiamus  et  exspectemus.  Plautus,  Trin.  681:  dem 
suades.  Plautus,  Asin.  644:  faciamus  suades.  Plautus, 
Ba.  24:  sine  te  amem.  Plautus,  Men.  890:  fac  sciam. 
Plautus,  Rud.  681 :  afferam  adigit.  Cicero,  Tusc.  Disp. 
1.49.119 :  referamur  necesse  est.  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am. 
13.36 :  ego  crimen  oportet  diluam.  Plautus,  Asin.  448 : 
Nunc  adeam  optumumst. 

Subjunctive  in  Second  Person. 

Sallust,  Cat.  52.26 :  miseriamini  censeo.  Cicero,  Ad 
Att.  II.lO.l :  volo  ames.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  III.l.l:  te  ore 
des  operam.  Pliny,  Epist.  V.19.8 :  rogo  scribas.  Pliny, 
Epist.  I.lO.ll:  te  Jiortor  permittas.  (Malo,  nolo,  faxo, 
dico,  interdico,  quaeso,  obsecro,  obtestor  also  appear.) 

1  Morris:  The  Subjunctive  in  Independent  Sentences  in  Plautus;  Dur- 
ham: The  Subjunctive  Substantive  Clauses  in  Plautus  not  Including 
Indirect  Questions,  Cornell  Studies  in  Classical  Philology,  No.  XIII. 


PARENTHETIC  INCOMPLETENESS  203 

Sallust,  Cat.  44.5 :  fac  cogites.  Plautus,  Asin.  902 :  sine 
revenias.  Pliny,  Epist.  VII.1.2:  moneo  resistas. 
Cicero,  Pro  Quinctio  22.73:  doceas  oportet.  Plautus, 
Aul.  568 :  optimumst  loces. 

Subjunctive  in  Third  Person. 

Plautus,  Ps.  1123:  volo  accipiat.  Pliny,  Epist. 
V.14.9:  cupio  remittat.  Seneca,  De  Vita  Beata  25.5: 
malo  iucundiora  veniant.  Pliny,  Epist.  III.12.1 :  pacis- 
cor  expedita  sit.  Tac.  Germ.  33.7:  Maneat,  quaeso, 
duretque  gentihus  .  .  .  odium  sui.  Cicero,  In  Verrem 
1.17.51 :  fac  veniat  in  mentem.  Martial  III.25.3 :  Roga 
lavetur.  Seneca,  Medea  189:  iuhete  sileat.  Sallust, 
Cat.  32.2:  mandat  confirment.  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am. 
22.62:  exstent  oportet.  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  40.116: 
videant  necesse  est.  Sallust,  Cat.  45.1 :  agant  permittit. 
Seneca,  Ad  Marciam  10.3:  admonendus  est  animus 
amet.  Cato,  R.R.  LXIX.2:  Tepeat  satis  est.  PUny, 
Epist.  IX.33.11 :  non  est  opus  adfingas  aliquid. 

The  second  person  scarcely  figures  in  the  instances 
of  inserted  verbs  except  in  the  imperative  because  the 
speaker  would  rarely  be  likely  to  tell  the  hearer  the 
latter 's  will  on  any  matter,  but  might  readily  urge  him 
to  a  certain  show  of  will.  Even  this  is  not  natural 
when  the  subjunctive  is  in  the  first  person  so  that  the 
second  person  is  found  interjected  there  only  in 
questions. 

Another  thing  to  be  noted  in  the  examples  cited  is 
the  group  of  cases  of  oro  te  and  like  expressions  in 
which  the  direct  object  of  the  verb  of  ordering  or 


204  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

requesting  or  asking  is  stated.  Pliny,  Epist.  VIII. 
17.6:  Teque  rogo  .  .  .  quam  maturissime  solicitudini 
meae  consulas.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  III.l.l:  Te  oro,  des 
operant.  Pliny,  Epist.  I.lO.ll:  Te  hortor  permittas. 
These  are  precisely  like  the  corresponding  type  with 
the  imperative.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  IV.Sa.l:  die,  oro  te, 
clarius.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  III.18.2:  fac,  obsecro  te,  ut 
sciamus.  With  the  personal  object  expressed  there  is 
even  less  feeling  of  any  necessity  of  a  subordinate 
clause  to  follow  than  there  is  without  it. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  there  is  no  shift  of  mode,  tense 
or  person  indicating  subordination.  The  subjunctives 
as  they  stand  are  quite  capable  of  functioning  alone. 

From  such  instances  there  undoubtedly  developed  a 
subordinate  construction  with  ut.  But  the  use  of  the 
construction  without  ut  never  became  exceptional.  The 
ut  construction  was  never  hard  and  fixed.  Cato  used 
facito  ut  amurcam  cotidie  suppleas  (69.1),  but  much 
more  frequently  facito  studeas  (25.1) ;  facito  uti  con- 
veniat  (42.1)  is  less  common  by  far  than  facito  ehibat 
(71.1).  And  so  throughout  the  literature,  rogo  scrihas 
and  rogo  ut  advoles,  animum  advortas  volo  and  volo 
ut  facias,  and  so  on,  appear  side  by  side.  (Even  in 
analogous  cases  in  the  imperfect  to  be  noted  presently, 
this  is  true.  Compare  Livy  XXIX.18.16 :  audita  .  .  . 
vox  est,  ahstinerent  manus,  with  Livy  XXIV.31.1: 
conclamant ,  honum  ut  animum  haherent.)  Both  con- 
structions were  at  hand  to  choose  from.  Neither  was 
regular  or  irregular,  but  the  use  without  the  conjunc- 
tion was  surely  the  more  natural  and  the  earlier.  The 
conjunction,  as  usual,  is  originally  supplementary. 


PARENTHETIC  INCOMPLETENESS  205 

The  negative  commands,  prohibitions,  are  similar 
and  equally  interesting.  For  example,  Cicero,  Ad  Att. 
IV.13.2 :  Illud  etiam  atque  etiam  te  rogo  .  .  .  ne  istuc 
Jiospes  veniam.  In  this  case,  to  be  sure,  the  notion  of 
''wish"  that  came  into  the  first  person  of  the  sub- 
junctive through  the  use  of  velim  (see  Morris),  is 
definitely  present  in  the  veniam  and  makes  possible  the 
use  of  rogo  as  a  defining  word.  A  more  simple  instance 
is  Martial  1.116.5:  si  cupit  hunc  aliquis,  moneo,  ne 
speret  agellum.  In  many  instances  the  negative  voli- 
tion came  to  be  merged  with  the  inserted  verb.  This  is 
of  course  a  secondary  usage.  Vetabo  sit  (Horace,  Odes 
III.2.26),  ames  nolo,  interdico  aiant,  and  Cave  tu  mi 
iratus  fuas  (Plautus,  Capt.  431),  are  examples. 

The  secondary  development  of  the  construction  by 
analogy  is  also  to  be  noted,  the  use  of  other  tenses  of 
the  subjunctive  with  injected  verbs  in  the  past.  Pliny, 
Epist.  IV.15.8:  Te  hortarer  circumferres  oculos.  Tac. 
Ann.  II.17.6:  exclamat  irent.  Pliny,  Epist.  IV.11.11: 
praemonetur  confugeret.  Cicero,  Pro  Rose.  Am.  32.90 : 
vellem  viverent.  Cicero,  Ad  Att.  II.4.7:  imperavi  ne 
impediret.    These  are  fully  discussed  by  Morris. 

It  hardly  belongs  to  the  province  of  this  discussion 
to  investigate  the  origins  of  grammatical  forms  which 
antedate  the  historical  period  of  the  language.  But  in 
the  case  of  such  constructions  as  the  subjunctive  after 
verbs  like  volo  and  iuheo,  it  has  seemed  worth  while  to 
go  a  little  beyond  mere  description  because  of  the 
clearness  and  significance  of  the  evidence.  The 
accepted  origin  of  ut  as  an  adverbial  form  of  the  rela- 
tive falls  in  with  all  other  indications  and  suggests  that 


206  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

here  was  a  verbal  usage  relying  on  incompleteness  of 
meaning  for  the  expression  of  its  sentence  relation- 
ship ;  that  this  relationship  was  further  defined  by  the 
use  of  an  adverb  which  was  in  process  of  attaining  a 
fixed  conjunctional  usage.  The  analogy  of  the  impera- 
tive used  in  consecutive  discourse  with  modo  and  sane^ 
strengthens  this  probability.  It  is  quite  a  secondary 
consideration  what  point  in  the  hardening  process  had 
been  reached  at  any  given  time. 

With  different  interjected  verbs  and  with  different 
sorts  of  sentences,  other  constructions  developed,  as 
noted  above:  with  declarative  sentences  and  verbs  of 
saying,  the  accusative  and  infinitive ;  with  interrogative 
sentences  and  verbs  of  asking,  the  subjunctive  with  an 
interrogative  particle.  In  all  these  instances,  the  verb 
of  saying  or  asking  or  urging  or  ordering  was  origi- 
nally incomplete  from  a  logical  standpoint  and  like 
most  of  the  incomplete  expressions  studied  indicates 
an  idea  logically  antecedent  to  the  adjacent  clause  (in 
this  case  to  the  clause  in  which  it  is  inserted) .  The  fact 
that  syntactically  it  developed  into  the  main  clause 
while  the  clause  to  which  it  lent  tone,  the  one  into  which 
it  was  injected,  became  the  subordinate  clause,  is  only 
a  further  illustration  of  the  essential  difference  be- 
tween logical  and  syntactical  relation.  It  furnishes  one 
of  the  best  examples  of  this  difference  and  of  the  more 
fundamental  nature  of  such  a  connective  element  as 
incompleteness  compared  with  the  subordinating 
conjunction  ut. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
CONCLUSION 

The  foregoing  analysis  of  the  fundamental  means  of 
expressing  relation  between  contiguous  sentences  re- 
veals three  general  types  which  define  relation  only  in 
a  somewhat  vague  way  except  as  special  uses  develop 
to  express  more  precise  definition.  Such  a  result  might 
at  first  seem  meagre.  In  reality,  it  should  be  expected 
that  any  investigation  going  back  of  the  precise  and 
sharply  defined  means  in  general  use  in  Classical  Latin 
would  lead  toward  means  of  less  precision  to  be  sure, 
but  of  more  general  application.  For  such  a  result  is 
in  accord  with  the  universal  law  of  progress  in 
language. 

The  original  ablative  ending  expressed  a  wide  range 
of  possible  relations,  limited  only  by  the  meaning  of 
the  word  itself  and  by  the  sense  of  the  context  in  which 
the  word  was  used.  In  some  instances,  as  for  example 
in  the  names  of  towns,  this  was  always  sufficient,  and 
nothing  further  in  the  way  of  precision  was  felt  neces- 
sary. But  in  others,  many  possible  relations  made  it 
natural  for  adverbs  to  be  used  with  the  phrase  in  which 
the  word  in  the  ablative  occurred,  to  indicate  within  a 
narrower  range  the  significance  of  the  ending.  Another 
step  was  gradually  taken  by  the  development  of  the 
adverb  into  a  preposition  until  finally  the  expression 


208  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

of   relation    rests    largely   in   this    external   element 
instead  of  in  the  case  ending. 

Such  a  process  is  typical  of  much  of  the  development 
in  language.  It  is  typical  of  the  progress  gradually 
made  through  long  periods  of  time  in  the  precise 
expression  of  the  relation  of  sentence  to  sentence. 
Just  as  words  spoken  in  succession  are  instinctively 
assumed  to  have  relation  and  in  fact  must  always  bear 
some  relation  to  each  other  if  the  utterance  be  that  of 
a  rational  being,  so  when  expression  of  thought  in 
sentences  had  become  an  established  fact,  some  rela- 
tion between  sentences  spoken  in  succession  was 
beyond  question.  Inasmuch  as  sentences  expressed 
more  than  single  words,  the  range  of  possible  relations 
was  distinctly  more  limited  than  that  between  words. 
Each  element  in  a  sentence,  by  its  bearing  on  the 
others,  narrows  down  the  range  of  possible  relation 
which  the  sentence  can  bear  to  others.  It  is  primarily 
for  this  reason  and  not  because  of  any  inherent  diffi- 
culty in  devising  a  modification  of  the  sentence  corre- 
sponding to  case  endings,  that  the  relation  between 
sentences  was  more  generally  and  for  a  longer  period 
left  for  mere  juxtaposition  to  indicate. 

But  even  between  sentences  there  were  usually 
several  different  relations  possible  and  there  were  at 
least  three  fundamental  and  natural  signs  that  served 
to  define  the  relation:  repetition,  change,  incomplete- 
ness. It  is  not  improbable  that  there  were  others  not 
yet  disclosed  by  investigation.  Until  the  need  of  more 
precision  was  felt,  the  relations  indicated  in  the  most 
general  way  by  such  fundamental  means  were  the  only 


CONCLUSION  209 


limitation  to  interpretation,  beyond  tlie  meaning  of  the 
individual  sentences  and  their  order  of  succession,  and 
even  this  last  might  often  be  misleading  rather  than 
helpful.  Adverbs  or  phrases  limiting  the  range  of 
possible  relation  suggested  by  the  meaning  of  a  sen- 
tence were  a  decided  step  toward  more  precision  and 
eventually  these  developed  into  conjunctions  upon 
which  devolved  much  of  the  work  previously  carried 
by  the  more  fundamental  means.  But  throughout  the 
history  of  the  language,  whether  with  or  without  the 
supplementary  force  of  the  conjunction,  repetition, 
change  and  incompleteness  exercised  their  natural  and 
universal  power  to  suggest  relation  between  sentence 
and  sentence,  and  not  infrequently  defined  the  relation 
so  adequately  that  none  of  the  more  artificial  means 
was  necessary.  The  extent  to  which  they  appear  thus 
unsupported  varied  with  their  use  by  different  writers 
and  should  prove  a  useful  criterion  of  style,  but  their 
chief  interest  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  furnish  another 
line  of  evidence  for  the  natural  development  of  lan- 
guage from  the  most  general  expression  of  ideas  to  the 
most  precise. 

In  the  introductory  chapters  the  general  psycho- 
logical principles  were  outlined  that  underly  all  sen- 
tence connection.  These  led  directly  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  fundamental  relations  which  language  seeks 
to  express.  The  next  question  to  arise,  what  are  the 
means  employed  by  language  to  express  these  relations, 
has  been  answered  to  a  considerable  extent  by  the 
results  of  the  investigation.  It  remains  to  point  out 
the  indications  of  the  resulting  types  of  sentence  not 


s»  i^ny  si:yYESCs 


—7*  .       • 


&I 


^siee<iE:# 


kL  is 


CONCLUSION  211 


be  found  the  ultimate  sources  of  the  force  of  sub- 
ordination. 

It  must  always  be  borne  in  mind  in  such  an  investi- 
gation that  after  the  subordinating  force  was  once 
acquired,  the  conjunctions  became  the  easiest  available 
carriers  for  the  notion  of  subordination  and  that,  as  a 
result,  they  were  used  very  generally  to  carry  the 
whole  notion  until  the  more  fundamental  means  were 
often  carelessly  expressed  or  entirely  neglected.  This 
is  true  of  the  coordinating  conjunctions  but  even  more 
true  of  the  subordinating  which  were  more  closely  knit 
to  the  sentences  with  which  they  were  employed. 

The  use  of  ne  as  the  conjunction  introducing  nega- 
tive clauses  of  purpose  is  discussed  at  some  length  by 
Morris  (p.  160)  and  may  serve  as  an  example  of  the 
possibility  of  studying  such  a  problem  from  the  pres- 
ent point  of  view.  The  ne  clauses  develop  along  two 
main  lines :  the  phrase  vide  ne  tituhes  illustrates  one, 
and  moderare  animo  ne  sis  cupidus  the  other.  The  first 
type  never  developed  to  any  great  extent  by  itself,  for 
the  ne  tituhes  is  regularly  a  prohibition  and  the  inter- 
jected vide  serves  merely  to  give  tone.  No  line  can 
be  drawn  between  parataxis  and  subordination,  as 
already  indicated  in  the  discussion  of  this  type  in 
Chapter  VII.  The  development  is  dependent  on  the 
type  of  the  injected  word :  first  persons  are  more  fre- 
quent and  typical  than  imperatives. 

The  other  type  of  ne  clause  is  totally  different.  The 
verb  moderare  is  not  a  verb  injected  to  give  tone  to  the 
prohibition:  moderare  animo  is  a  logically  complete 
clause  intended  to  be  understood  literally.     It  has 


212  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

about  it,  however,  such  a  vague  generality  that  it 
implies  an  explanatory  clause  to  follow  to  give  it  pre- 
cision. The  mere  fact  that  the  clause  furnishing  the 
precision  is  a  ne  clause  expressing  a  prohibition  does 
not  affect  the  relation,  except  for  the  fact  that  the 
imperative  sense  makes  a  formal  repetition  indicating 
the  coincidence  of  the  clauses. 

A  distinct  variation  of  this  second  type  is  seen  in  the 
example  which  Morris  quotes  in  this  connection:  novi, 
ne  doceas.  In  such  instances  it  is  the  ne  clause  which 
is  vague  or  even  irrelevant  except  as  explained  by  the 
other  clause  (in  this  case  novi)  placed  before  it  to  fore- 
stall the  effect  of  this  very  vagueness.  The  fact,  there- 
fore, that  the  underlying  means  of  expressing  the  rela- 
tion may  lie  either  in  the  ne  clause  or  in  the  other,  indi- 
cates that  originally  there  was  no  subordination:  the 
two  clauses  were  syntactically  independent  and  either 
one  could  suggest  the  relation.  Both  types  are  dis- 
cussed in  Chapter  VI.  It  was  only  a  tendency  toward 
classification,  toward  precision  of  expression  along  a 
narrower  line,  that  led  eventually  to  the  emphasis  of 
one  phase  of  the  relation  at  the  expense  of  the  rest. 
Under  the  influence  of  similar  instances  in  which  the 
explanatory  prohibition  is  an  explanation  of  the  pur- 
pose of  the  vague  clause,  it  would  seem  that  the  nega- 
tive clauses  of  purpose  came  into  being.  The  ne,  being 
the  constant  element  amid  many  elements  that  were 
different  in  every  instance,  came  in  time  to  carry  the 
notion  of  negative  purpose  which  through  the  narrow- 
ing process  noted  had  come  also  to  be  constant.  In  the 
type  illustrated  by  vide  ne  tituhes,  the  fundamental 


CONCLUSION  213 


sign  of  relation  was  always  the  regular  indicator  of 
relation  except  in  so  far  as  the  development  of  the 
other  type  influenced  its  interpretation. 

In  the  case  of  licet  and  of  modo  the  acquisition  of 
subordinating  force,  so  far  as  it  ever  really  existed, 
came  through  the  use  of  suggestive  emphasis  and  has 
been  already  studied  in  the  present  investigation. 
Simul  and  si  might  with  advantage  be  examined  with 
reference  to  the  formal  repetition  behind  their  use 
leading  eventually  to  subordinating  force,  through  the 
correlative  stage.  With  regard  to  the  large  group  of 
conjunctions  which  come  from  the  quis  forms,  the 
investigation  must  be  somewhat  different,  but  here  too 
new  light  ought  to  be  found.  Some  of  them  coming 
directly  from  the  relative,  such  as  quod  and  quo,  should 
find  their  ultimate  explanation  in  a  more  thorough 
understanding  of  the  development  of  the  subordinating 
force  of  the  relative  already  indicated,  and  for  the 
others  it  should  be  possible  either  to  prove  that  they 
come  from  the  developed  relative  or  else  to  find  in  a 
parallel  development  from  the  indefinite  or  interroga- 
tive stage  the  explanation  of  their  subordinating  force. 
The  use  of  ut  will,  I  believe,  furnish  especially  good 
material.  In  the  end  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  a 
new  basis  will  be  found  for  classifying  the  conjunc- 
tions, namely,  according  to  the  underlying  fundamental 
means  of  expressing  sentence  relations. 

Such  investigation  as  that  just  suggested  into  the 
origins  of  conjunctional  usage  is  indicated  to  show 
some  of  the  practical  use  to  which  the  results  of  the 
more  general  analysis  of  the  present  work  may  be  put. 


214  LATIN  SENTENCE  CONNECTION 

The  analysis  itself  has  however  a  larger  phase  and  a 
broader  bearing  on  the  study  of  language.  It  serves 
partially  to  disclose  the  extremely  intricate  structure 
of  even  the  simplest  expression  of  ideas.  The  most 
unstudied  discourse  appears  under  investigation  to 
present  not  merely  a  succession  of  concepts  put  into 
words  without  relation.  The  ideas  behind  the  spoken 
language  were  essentially  related  in  the  mind  of  the 
speaker  and  even  without  consciously  doing  so  the 
speaker  gives  expression  to  the  relations  as  well  as  to 
the  individual  ideas.  For  his  mind  carries  forward 
the  idea  already  expressed  and  also  foresees,  in  at  least 
a  general  way,  the  idea  that  is  to  follow,  and  such  are 
the  subtleties  of  language  that,  without  deliberate 
effort  on  the  part  of  its  speaker,  the  sentence  being 
spoken  expresses  its  own  relation  to  one  or  both  of 
these.  Precision  and  accuracy  of  expression  increase 
as  more  careful  attention  is  given  to  the  means  of 
connection  but  the  really  remarkable  fact  is  their 
presence  where  no  careful  attention  is  given  to  them, 
and  an  understanding  of  their  use  as  developed  by 
rhetoric  depends  on  an  understanding  of  their  unrhe- 
torical  use.  Instead  of  any  growing  contempt,  famili- 
arity with  the  ways  of  sentences  in  consecutive  dis- 
course breeds  a  distinct  respect  for  the  vehicle  of 
thought  which  is  not  confined  to  the  narrow  limits 
imposed  by  the  obvious  and  mechanical  means  of 
expressing  the  relation  of  sentence  to  sentence. 


I 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TOii-^'      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2                      : 

3 

4 

5                               ( 

b 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation 

Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

■   ■— 

m.  ' 

REC.  CIR.    JUN  1  0   UTS 

FEB  2  G  1981 

■BLCR.    APR^7  ^ 

n 

' 

!?ES.  cm     fviAV  1  9  191 

! 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  40m,  3/78  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


UC  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDM7DMafl7b 


^57;]9j 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRABY 


■  Afl 


lliliiilll!  il 


